PRIVATE BUSINESS

London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill

Lords amendments agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Paul Quinn

Alasdair McDonnell: What recent discussions he has had with the Irish Government on the murder of Paul Quinn.

Paul Goggins: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are in regular contact with the Irish Government on a range of policing issues, including the investigation into the murder of Paul Quinn. As recently as last week, the Irish Minister of Justice assured me that the Garda, in leading the investigation, continues to work very closely with the Police Service of Northern Ireland in order to bring those responsible to justice.

Alasdair McDonnell: In the discussions, have the publicly stated views of the investigating Garda Siochana—namely, that this case is not, and never has been, a fall-out between criminals but rather that there is clear paramilitary involvement in the planning, execution and forensic clean-up of the murder site—been discussed?

Paul Goggins: What I can confirm to the House is that the Independent Monitoring Commission determined in its most recent report that this act was carried out by local people and arose from a local dispute. However, the detailed investigations, which are being carried out by the Garda in the Republic and the PSNI in Northern Ireland, can continue. I reassure my hon. Friend that the investigation is live and active. I am sure that he will take some comfort from that.

Gregory Campbell: The security situation in Northern Ireland and the border areas has improved immeasurably in recent years, but there are a small number of murders for which no one has been brought to justice, Paul Quinn's being one and Robert McCartney's being another. Both those murders happened in areas either where Sinn Fein has political influence or where members of Sinn Fein were in the vicinity at the time. What pressure is the Minister bringing to bear on Sinn Fein as a political movement to bring those responsible to justice?

Paul Goggins: Last year, as the hon. Gentleman knows, Sinn Fein made the historic decision to give its full support to policing and the rule of law in Northern Ireland. Indeed, that underpinned and brought about the confidence that enabled the restoration of the institutions of devolution to happen. Sinn Fein representatives speak out whenever there is an unexplained murder. Indeed, as recently as yesterday, Sinn Fein leaders made clear their view that anybody who knows about criminal acts should come to the police and give them the information that they have.

Real IRA/Continuity IRA

Ben Wallace: If he will make a statement on the current activities of the (a) Real IRA and (b) Continuity IRA.

Shaun Woodward: The most recent complete analysis is set out in the IMC report published last month.

Ben Wallace: The Secretary of State will know that when he is routinely asked such questions, he replies via the IMC report. Will he tell the House whether he receives different intelligence on the activities of those dissident republicans from that which is published in the report?

Shaun Woodward: First, we rely so heavily on the work of the IMC because it produces a considered report, based on evidence compiled from a number of sources. Most hon. Members would agree that it has been extremely accurate and authoritative over the years since it was set up. I receive, obviously, additional security information. The individual who most closely advises me on that is the Chief Constable, with whom I remain in touch, often on a daily basis.

Mark Durkan: The Secretary of State will be aware that dissident republicans are deemed to be responsible for the murder of Emmett Shiels this week in my constituency—a young man robbed of his life, a baby soon to be born without a father. Does the Secretary of State share my hope that the profound response of the community in Derry offers some comfort to Emmett Shiels's family? Indeed, it even seems to be having some effect on those who were involved in the murder. Does the Secretary of State share the determination that there should be a united political response to ensure that there is no doubt, difference or difficulty in relation to the politics of policing that can ever be exploited by republican dissidents?

Shaun Woodward: May I join the hon. Gentleman—I am sure that I speak for all Members—in sending our deepest sympathies to the family of Emmett Shiels? What happened yesterday was an horrific crime that should not have happened. It has left a family devastated and it does not surprise me to hear that last night more than 1,000 people took part in a vigil to remember the life of Emmett Shiels. I am encouraged to hear this morning that the police have already made two arrests and I understand that more may follow.
	On the last part of the question, I believe that it does matter that we complete the process of devolution sooner rather than later for one very important reason: regrettably, there are still some dissident individuals out there who hang on to some obscure hope, with no support in the community, that they can shake that community's confidence in the future of Northern Ireland. The best thing we can all do is to work together to bring about stability and peace as soon as possible.

David Simpson: On behalf of my party, I join the rest of the House in expressing sincere sympathies to the family of Emmett Shiels, who was so brutally murdered in Londonderry earlier this week. That is a tragedy that should never have happened. The Secretary of State will be aware of ongoing threats against people in Northern Ireland from dissident republicans, including one against one of my constituents who left the security forces more than 10 years ago. Will the Minister assure the House not only that every available resource will be channelled into ridding Northern Ireland of such groups, but that when those people are convicted, they will be given a punishment that will fit the crime?

Shaun Woodward: I warmly welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I can add little to what he said, other than that I fully endorse the fact that the full weight of the law should be used against those who wish to commit crime in any part of the United Kingdom. I am encouraged to see that all those people who have entered into government in the Assembly and the Executive fully share those views.

Adrian Bailey: My right hon. Friend will be well aware that the impartiality of policing has been a long-running issue in Northern Ireland. Will he tell me what impact he thinks the devolution of both policing and the criminal justice system will have on dissident groups in Northern Ireland?

Shaun Woodward: I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention. There is no doubt in my mind that we have reached a point where it is extremely important that the political parties reach agreement on a time scale for the devolution of policing and justice in order to complete the devolution arrangements that were begun last year. It is very much our view that that must be agreed between the parties and that what we can do is to ensure that the arrangements are in place for that to happen as soon as possible.
	Last week's visit of the President of the United States to Northern Ireland, which was welcomed by everybody in Northern Ireland, brought on the back of it more investment and more commitment to the people of Northern Ireland. The President's message was very clear: it will be easier for him to pressure American companies to continue to make that investment, particularly in a time of international downturn, if devolution is completed sooner rather than later. He was explicit in his remarks about that.

Laurence Robertson: On behalf of the official Opposition, I condemn the murder of 22-year-old Emmett Shiels and send our profound sympathies to his family after this totally unacceptable and unnecessary murder. On the wider issues, it is very worrying, as we may be seeing a trend towards murder and attempted murder by dissident republicans. Only recently, we saw attempts to blow up and murder police officers. Indeed, the chief inspector responsible at the scene of the crime on that occasion said that the police could not
	"go blindly rushing into an area until we were satisfied that it was safe to do so".
	Everyone would sympathise totally with the police, with masked men lying in wait in the area. That is an unacceptable situation in the Province, which is, of course, part of the United Kingdom. We have to move away from that violence.

Shaun Woodward: I warmly welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The Chief Constable has been very clear about the position. Regrettably, there is a heightened level of dissident activity in Northern Ireland, probably higher than at any time in the last five years, although that should not be confused with the work being done by the police and the security forces to ensure that we continue to infiltrate these organisations and bring their members to justice whenever we can. We are confident that they are not building support in the community or recruiting in the community, because they find no support in the community, but that does not mean that they are not dangerous. As the Chief Constable has said, as they sense time running out as the parties reach agreement on issues that once divided them, they may unfortunately carry out more and more desperate acts. That is why the extraordinary bravery of the police in Northern Ireland should remain uppermost in our minds.

Alan Reid: I join the House in sending sympathy to the family of Emmett Shiels, the victim of this horrific murder.
	In its recent reports, the Independent Monitoring Commission has stressed that transition cannot continue indefinitely and that paramilitary organisations cannot continue to expect the comfort of the decommissioning legislation. How close do the Government think we are to achieving normalisation, and what further steps are required before we can achieve it?

Shaun Woodward: The hon. Gentleman has asked an important question, to which I have given careful consideration. In a speech that I delivered in Belfast in May, I made it clear that it was important for all who, for example, continue to retain weapons to recognise that, sooner rather than later, we will inevitably bring institutions such as the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning to a conclusion, because they cannot be part of a normal society. They have helped to bring Northern Ireland to normalisation, but they cannot be there indefinitely.
	It is vital for everyone to hear that. I welcome the progress that is being made, particularly by some of the loyalist dissident organisations, but they have to hear the message. What they do is criminal, and what they continue to do will be treated as criminal. The decommissioning process that allows them to hand in their weapons will come to an end sooner rather than later, and I urge them to continue to make progress and decommission those weapons now.

Alcohol-related Crime (Young People)

John Robertson: What steps he is taking to reduce the incidence of alcohol-related crime among young people in Northern Ireland.

Paul Goggins: We are working closely with the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland to tackle the issues associated with alcohol misuse by young people, including alcohol-related crime. A young people and alcohol action plan will be published later in the year.

John Robertson: My hon. Friend will be well aware that alcohol-related crime is a problem not just in Northern Ireland but in the United Kingdom as a whole, but the fact remains that there has been a 26 per cent. rise in drink-fuelled crime in Northern Ireland. He told us about measures that he has taken, but does he agree that it is time for us to do more? What will he do not only to reduce the increase in crime of this sort, but to reverse the present trend?

Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend has identified an important issue, to which we are responding. The young people and alcohol action plan is being led by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, but with full co-operation from the Northern Ireland Office and, indeed, other Departments in Northern Ireland. It is important for us to have an effective action plan. In the meantime, the Police Service of Northern Ireland is enforcing the law relating to alcohol, not least by cracking down on consumption of alcohol during parades. Last Friday evening during the Tour of the North parade, 500 bottles and cans, including bottles and cans of alcohol, were confiscated by the police.

Nigel Dodds: I welcome what the Minister said about the Tour of the North, in which I took part with great pleasure. I noted the police's active role in confiscating alcohol and so on.
	The chief medical officer for Northern Ireland has revealed the shocking statistics that the average age of those having their first alcoholic drink in Northern Ireland is 11, the greatest increase in drinking occurs between the ages of 11 and 13, and 2 per cent. of all young people in Northern Ireland admit to binge drinking. Can the Minister be more specific? Will he introduce laws to ensure that a two strikes and out rule applies to those who sell alcohol to youngsters, and will he consider introducing dispersal zones in Northern Ireland like those in the rest of the United Kingdom to tackle directly the problem that we are experiencing in the Province?

Paul Goggins: There is widespread concern across Northern Ireland following Dr. McBride's report of earlier this week on the prevalence of alcohol use among under-age children. In principle, we are supportive of dispersal zones; I will issue in the near future a consultation on community safety issues generally, and we will consult on that specific proposal. On the hon. Gentleman's other suggestions, let me assure him that as the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety leads this work on the action plan, we will consider what enforcement powers and legislation are necessary to underpin the strategy.

Chris Ruane: Alcohol-related crime and serious crime in Northern Ireland will be truly tackled only if the local neighbourhood policing teams have the full confidence of their local community. To that end, will the Minister update us on what progress is being made on the devolution of policing to Northern Ireland?

Paul Goggins: The development and roll-out of neighbourhood policing is an important issue in Northern Ireland, as it is elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Indeed, it is a high priority for the Police Service of Northern Ireland this year, and the evidence in Northern Ireland is the same as it is everywhere else, which is that where we have good, strong, local neighbourhood policing working in partnership with local people and local organisations, we get very effective results.

Defence Expenditure

Peter Bone: What recent discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland First Minister on expenditure on defence in Northern Ireland.

Shaun Woodward: Operation Banner ended in July 2007. Expenditure on defence in Northern Ireland is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Peter Bone: I thank the Secretary of State for that unhelpful answer. Will he confirm that all the proceeds from the sale of redundant military establishments in the Province will go to the Ministry of Defence to help our forces overseas at a time when they are stretched beyond capabilities?

Shaun Woodward: My answer may not have been helpful, but it was actually an answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. I shall, however, try to help him with his second question as well. It might be helpful if I assist him in understanding the background to the sale of sites in Northern Ireland. Five sites were gifted and transferred to the Northern Ireland Executive in 2002 to use to generate investment and create other opportunities. The 2003 joint declaration makes reference to further sites that
	"might be made available to the Executive".
	There are currently nine disused sites that could fall into that category. As the sites are owned by the MOD, the proceeds raised by the sale of those assets will, of course, fall to the MOD, and it is for the Secretary of State for Defence to decide how those proceeds should be used.

George Howarth: Would it not be odd if there were not discussions between Ministers at Westminster and Ministers in the devolved Assembly about the disposal of assets, and, for that matter, about any other policies on which the two Administrations have a common interest? I find it odd that this should be raised as an issue at all.

Shaun Woodward: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments, because he has considerable experience of both Northern Ireland and defence matters. Let me say the following in an advisory capacity to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) and his friends. Military sites in Northern Ireland are extremely important historically and they offer an important source of future revenue for the Ministry of Defence. I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that in discussions about those sites my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will look extremely carefully at how the proceeds are used. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) said, it is important to recognise that it is sensible for there to be discussions between those on the ground in Northern Ireland and those in the MOD.

Peter Robinson: I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has confirmed that a deal was done in respect of handing over military sites to the Northern Ireland Executive. It was done in April 2003, and it was welcomed by the Conservative party, who supported that declaration, and by the Liberal Democrats, who also supported it. The sites the Secretary of State mentions were handed to the Northern Ireland Executive in 2002 and the 2003 agreement stated that additional sites should be handed over, so when are the Government going to do that?

Shaun Woodward: As I have reminded the House, the sites that were gifted were the five sites in 2002. In 2003, the wording specifically said that further sites might be made available. The right hon. Gentleman will of course know that we have been looking over the last year at some of the sites for which there are plans in Northern Ireland, but there is disappointment that there continues to be disagreement about, for example, the Maze site, which was gifted in 2002. Regrettably, it continues to be the subject of controversy. If the national stadium project were to be lost from the Maze, it would almost certainly mean that Northern Ireland would lose its opportunity to be one of the focuses for the Olympics in 2012.

Patrick Cormack: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Maze is not a military site? Has he visited Omagh and discussed with the local people their interesting and imaginative scheme for an educational campus on the Lisanelly barracks site? Does he agree that it might be possible to bring that to fruition by realising the asset value of the current school sites in Omagh?

Shaun Woodward: I welcome that question not least because the hon. Gentleman has been in correspondence with me about the use of that site since October. As a result of his intervention, I visited the site some months ago. It is an exciting site because it has cross-community support and all parties in Northern Ireland would like to see the site developed. I share the enthusiasm for the development of the project and I look forward to reading the business case, which will, I understand, be presented to the Executive very shortly.

Hugo Swire: The Secretary of State has obviously been doing his homework on this subject, so can he inform the House on the progress of the sale of Shackleton barracks, and the current asking price?

Shaun Woodward: We will continue to look at that, but all sales of military sites are matters for the Ministry of Defence.

Budget Allocations

Eddie McGrady: Whether additional financial allocations have been made to the Northern Ireland budget since the original determination of the funding allocation for 2008-09.

Shaun Woodward: Additional allocations were agreed at the end of 2007 to fund actuarial variations to police pensions, annual Barnett upratings on 12 March, an increase in the ceiling of assets sales to be retained by the Executive on 8 May, and most recently £6 million for the Irish Language Broadcasting Fund.

Eddie McGrady: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. I am somewhat whimsically disappointed that the rumours that went round the House two weeks ago did not produce millions upon millions extra for us, but be that as it may. Services in Northern Ireland are suffering a shortage of cash funding. We have an educational changeover that has not been costed in any way, and no provision appears to have been made for it. Extended school hours have been withdrawn and, in health, a comprehensive spending review is withdrawing front-line services. Will the Secretary of State engage with the Treasury, the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and the new Northern Ireland Executive to try to assuage some of the real suffering that is ahead for the people of Northern Ireland?

Shaun Woodward: I recognise the work that is being done in education in Northern Ireland, but I remind the House that that is now a devolved matter. The finances for education are a matter for the Executive and the Assembly, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that last year in the comprehensive spending review the then Chancellor, now my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, made a generous and significant settlement to Northern Ireland. It is a matter for the Executive how the money is spent.

Owen Paterson: There has been widespread speculation about the detail of the talks and the agreement leading up to the establishment of the new Executive. What was the deal, and does it have any budget implications?

Shaun Woodward: As always, the hon. Gentleman gets excited about his questions, but I am going to have to disappoint him. There was no deal and therefore there are no financial implications.

Owen Paterson: I thought that the Ulster White was a rare pig, now sadly extinct. I did not realise that it had been reincarnated in flying form. We know that there were tense and difficult negotiations in Downing street with the Prime Minister. There was clearly an agreement, because the Executive was reformed, which was good news. The Secretary of State has already mentioned the figure of £6 million, which was announced by the president of Sinn Fein rather than the Secretary of State. Devolution of criminal justice and policing has been mentioned, as have water rates, the sale of military sites and education. Why will not the Secretary of State tell us what the deal was?

Shaun Woodward: The short answer is that there was no deal. The hon. Gentleman mentions the £6 million for the Irish Language Broadcasting Fund. This may have escaped him, but I do not think that Sinn Fein took its places to vote on the matter of 42 days last week. The hon. Gentleman should be very careful, because he is impugning the reputation of a number of Members from Northern Ireland who are highly principled on the matter of counter-terrorism. I suggest that before he gives lectures to Members of the DUP, he should pay attention to one of the most principled parties in the House when it comes to the business of building a robust framework of counter-terrorism legislation.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Khalid Mahmood: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 June.

Gordon Brown: Before I list my engagements, I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in sending our profound condolences to the families and friends of the two servicemen killed in Afghanistan yesterday. They will remain always in our thoughts and we owe them a deep debt of gratitude for their sacrifice.
	This morning, I had meetings and discussions with ministerial colleagues, including, as the House will want to know, on the subject of bringing forward next week immediate legislation to enable the courts to grant anonymity to witnesses in cases such as those involving organised crime and witness intimidation. I hope and believe that we can do that with all-party support. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings with Ministers later today.

Khalid Mahmood: I echo my right hon. Friend's words on our gratitude to all the servicemen who have lost their lives defending the values that we all cherish.
	What action will the Prime Minister take to encourage the African nations to help resolve the current crisis in Zimbabwe?

Gordon Brown: Following the United Nations Security Council resolution, promoted by the United Kingdom, that the conditions are not there for free and fair elections in Zimbabwe, we will stand alongside African leaders who do not accept the legitimacy of the election and who do not accept the legitimacy of the regime and the criminal cabal surrounding President Mugabe. I understand that the Southern African Development Community will meet today and the African Union will meet on Sunday. It is our hope that the UN and the AU can work together for a peaceful transition in Zimbabwe and we are ready to commit substantial resources to Zimbabwe once democracy returns.
	I can also confirm that we are preparing intensified sanctions, both financial sanctions and travel sanctions against named members of the Mugabe regime. I can also announce that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is working with the England and Wales Cricket Board. We want to ensure that Zimbabwe do not tour England next year and we will call for other countries to join us in banning Zimbabwe from the Twenty20 international tournament.

David Cameron: May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the two soldiers from the Parachute Regiment who were killed in Afghanistan yesterday? Our troops are doing an incredibly difficult job in tough circumstances and they have our full support.
	Let me ask some further questions, if I may, about Zimbabwe. I believe, as I believe the Prime Minister does, that there is a real opportunity for Britain to take the initiative. There is universal anger at the stolen election, universal support for the leader of the opposition's pulling out of the race, condemnation from the UN Security Council and, for a change, strong words from Zimbabwe's neighbours.
	May I ask the Prime Minister about three specific actions? First, at the forthcoming G8, which President Mbeki will attend, will the Prime Minister push for a declaration that all states present will cease to prop up the regime and will refuse to recognise its legitimacy?

Gordon Brown: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the UN passed a strong presidential statement on Monday. South Africa was very much part of that statement, which made it clear that the elections could not take place in the present circumstances and called for an end to violence. I will, of course, raise the matter in every international forum. I raised it in the European Union at the Council last Thursday and Friday, and there was a strong statement from the EU. I have talked to other members of the G8, including President Bush, about the situation.
	I believe that the hope that exists for a peaceful outcome to the problems that we face lies in the fact that, as the right hon. Gentleman has indicated, the leaders of so many African Governments—of Zambia, Botswana, Tanzania, Angola, Senegal and Kenya—as well as the African National Congress have made it absolutely clear that they cannot support the current regime. They want the full civil and political rights of the Zimbabwean people restored.
	I want us to work with the African Union and the UN, and I believe that it would be best if a joint delegation went to Zimbabwe. What we want to achieve is a peaceful transition, the promise of support for a new regime, and an end to the violence that has caused so many deaths.

David Cameron: We support very much what the Prime Minister has said. We too welcome the UN statement, and I also welcome what he said about sporting sanctions in answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Mahmood). Will he clarify one point arising from our discussions on Monday? He said that he would no longer recognise the legitimacy of the Mugabe regime, but may I ask him a bit more about what that means? The Foreign Secretary said on Monday that it is not possible to ban Mugabe from attending summits
	"until he is no longer the president of Zimbabwe."—[ Official Report, 23 June 2008; Vol. 478, c. 46.]
	So when the Prime Minister says that he does not recognise the regime's legitimacy, what does he actually mean? What will the practical consequences be?

Gordon Brown: As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, we are bound by international laws on the question of the regime, but we do not recognise the legitimacy of the Zimbabwean Government. We do not believe that Mugabe has honoured the results of the previous election, or that the current elections can be free and fair. We want to see a peaceful transition as soon as possible.
	If we look back at the elections that did take place, it was clear that Mugabe lost them and that Tsvangirai was ahead. It is also clear that the Parliament in Zimbabwe has a majority against Mugabe. That is why what African leaders have said in the last few days is so important. For the first time, many of them have condemned both Mugabe's regime and his behaviour. We want to work for a peaceful transition. I believe that the statements made by the UN Secretary-General calling for an end to violence and offering his help to that end, as well as the strong statements from President Kikwete of Tanzania, are the best symbol of the way forward—that is, the UN and the African Union working together for a change of regime.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister mentioned tighter EU sanctions. Will he confirm that, when they are drawn up, our Government will specifically propose a full visa ban for Mugabe, his officials, their families and associates? Will the sanctions also propose financial measures, which must include a full assets freeze on institutions complicit in the regime as well as a ban on their transactions? Does he agree that this matter is not just for Governments, and that businesses and individuals that have any dealings with Zimbabwe must examine their responsibilities and ensure that they do not make investments that prop up the regime?

Gordon Brown: The right hon. Gentleman may also know that 160 individuals are under bans and sanctions as a result of decisions already taken. We are looking at extending the bans, as he suggested, to the families of the people involved. The bans will include financial sanctions, but also travel sanctions. We know the names of the individuals surrounding Mugabe, and we therefore know the names of the criminal cabal trying to keep him in power. We will name those individuals, and that will be part of the next stage of the sanctions.
	I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that businesses should also look at their involvement in Zimbabwe. We have taken a decision that we will force through sanctions against the individuals who are part of the regime. We do not want to do further damage to the Zimbabwean people, but businesses that are helping the regime should of course reconsider their position.
	I believe that the whole world has woken up to the evils that have been going on in Zimbabwe, and that the whole international community, with a few exceptions, is now united in calling for action. What we want is an end to the violence, and a peaceful transition in Zimbabwe. That is why the efforts of the AU and the UN are so important. We will support them in their efforts and offer the Zimbabwean people help with reconstruction once democracy is restored.

Brian H Donohoe: On yesterday's "Today" programme, it was argued that speculators are responsible for the doubling of the oil price. The US Congress has been examining the situation, and is working very hard to limit the damage being done by speculators—who, by the way, control more than 71 per cent. of the futures market. However, the speculators are likely to move to London where, Congress argues, the rules are more lax. What are the Government doing to protect the poor people who are having to pay the high prices at the petrol pumps?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is a huge issue, because oil prices have trebled over the past two years, and they have risen very substantially in the past few months. I was in Jeddah and met all the oil producers to talk about these matters.
	The first thing that we know is that the American Congress is looking at this matter. The Financial Services Authority is looking for any evidence of market manipulation and the Treasury is looking at what financial speculation may have taken place in the marketplace. If there is any evidence of that, we will act. We will also work with the rest of the European Union, which is examining the issue.
	I have to tell my hon. Friend that there is another issue here: demand for oil in the world exceeds the supply of oil, and it will for years to come. That is why we are making bold decisions for which I would hope have all-party support—first of all, to have energy independence through having nuclear power in this country. While we have made the decision, the Opposition have ducked it.

Nicholas Clegg: I would like to add my own expressions of sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of the two soldiers who tragically lost their lives in Afghanistan yesterday.
	Before the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister, I think that some people thought he was a man of principle. Over the past 12 months, time and again, we have seen him abandon what he knows to be right for what he thinks is expedient. This afternoon, he has the chance to do the right thing when veterans from the Gurkhas march on No. 10 to hand in their medals in protest at the way in which they have been treated by this Government. I have asked him four times to receive those medals, and every time he has refused. Will he now have the grace to receive them today, or will he turn them away yet again?

Gordon Brown: I do thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising the question of the Gurkhas, because it allows me to explain what has actually been done. We respect the fact that Gurkhas have fought for the United Kingdom for two centuries. They have served in conflicts throughout the world. We greatly value their contribution, both past and present, and we know that they are operating in Iraq and continue to serve with great distinction in Afghanistan.
	The Government have improved the way in which we are treating the Gurkhas. Serving Gurkhas, and some who are recently retired, for the first time have membership of the armed forces pension scheme. They have a genuinely improved deal, and 2,232 retired Gurkhas who were serving on 1 July 1997 or later have also been offered those arrangements.
	There are other things that we are doing, including equality of take-home pay with the British Army, the creation of national insurance records, changing the immigration rules to help retired Gurkhas, married accompanied service after three years in the brigade and the opportunity to transfer to one of the two armed forces pension schemes. All those things we have done. The right hon. Gentleman cannot say that we have been inactive; we are trying to honour our obligations to people who have served the country well.

Nicholas Clegg: Once again, we have a long list from the Prime Minister that misses the important issue. On Friday, it is Veterans day, a day when we celebrate the courage of those who risk their lives for our country. The Prime Minister says that he values courage above all else, so why will he not do the thing that would really help some of the most courageous veterans of all? Veterans of the Gurkhas who have to rely on charity and who face deportation because his Government will not grant them British citizenship are protesting outside right now. When will he act to correct that gross injustice and give those brave veterans the recognition and citizenship that they deserve?

Gordon Brown: I have just told the right hon. Gentleman that the immigration rules were changed in 2004 to include post-1997 retired Gurkhas. The opportunity is now there to transfer to the wider Army after five years; there are increased opportunities for Gurkhas after leaving the Army; there are opportunities to obtain settlement and naturalisation—that is citizenship—while serving in the wider Army; and we have given the pensions that I have just identified. He cannot say that we have done nothing to help the Gurkhas. We have shown how we value the Gurkhas in this country.

Tony Lloyd: Child poverty was a matter of national shame when the Conservative Government were in power. My right hon. Friend deserves enormous credit for the 600,000 children whose families have been taken out of poverty, but now that we face difficult economic times, will he give a recommitment to the eradication of child poverty by 2020? Frankly, if this Government and this Prime Minister will not give that commitment, no other party in this House will make the same offer.

Gordon Brown: We are the only party that has made, and is making, this commitment, and I ask other parties to join us in making the commitment even now. When we came to power, 3.5 million children were in poverty. Absolute poverty in this country has fallen so that the figure is 1.7 million, and we have a long way to go. Relative poverty has fallen by 600,000. Even in difficult economic circumstances, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the pre-Budget report and the Budget that 300,000 more children will be taken out of poverty. We have doubled child benefit. The child tax credit was £27 for the poorest child when we came to power; it is now more than £70. We have done what the previous Conservative Government failed to do: we are tackling child poverty.

David Cameron: Britain is facing a wave of potential strikes that are threatened by, among others, housing benefit staff, social workers, teaching assistants and refuse collectors. With that in mind, will the Prime Minister rule out categorically any further changes that would weaken in any way the trade union laws introduced by past Conservative Governments?

Gordon Brown: We have no plans to change employment laws further. Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be better if he would support us when we are trying to negotiate three-year pay deals with the public sector. We have negotiated them for teachers, nurses, health service workers and civil servants, and they are now in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Inland Revenue. Two million people are covered by public sector pay deals. The shadow Chancellor said on "Newsnight" last week:
	"I'm not against opening negotiated pay deals."
	A few hours later, he had to clarify the statement, saying:
	"I am against reopening public sector pay deals".
	Perhaps the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) can tell us the position of the Conservative party on supporting stability in the economy.

David Cameron: The whole House will have heard the Prime Minister say that he has no plans to change trade union laws. This is the same man who, as Chancellor, said that he had no plans to introduce taxes, and then introduced extra taxes. If he genuinely has no plans to introduce new trade union laws, will he explain why he is going ahead with the Warwick Two process, in which the trade unions and Ministers will sit down and discuss policies, including the laws governing industrial action?

Gordon Brown: Of course we are going to discuss policies with every section of the community—surely that is what politics is about. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was quite anxious to talk to the TUC as well.
	I come back to this point: is the Conservative party supporting our three-year public sector pay deals? They are unique. They are a barrier against inflation and they give us stability for the future. They are a signal to the rest of the public sector and to the private sector. However, the Conservatives are silent on that, just as they were on the 22 million people benefiting from a low tax rate with the personal allowances coming down. They should tell us whether they support economic stability, low inflation and low interest rates, which is what this will help to achieve.

David Cameron: Do you know what? If the Prime Minister wants to ask us questions and he has had a year in office, why not call an election? He said that he needed more time to set out his vision. I think that we have had a year; why not bring on the election?
	Is the Prime Minister really telling us that his Ministers are going to sit down with the people who provide 92 per cent. of the governing party's income and that there will be no mention of trade union laws? Is it not the case that trade union leaders look at this Prime Minister and see just weakness? Tony Blair—remember him?—said:
	"I have not created New Labour to see a Labour government give away power to the unions".
	He also said that
	"you can't go back to the situation where 90 per cent. of the funding is provided by trade unions".
	Is not that exactly what has happened? We have a bankrupt Labour party. It is in hock to the unions and a wave of strikes is threatened. As the Prime Minister lurches to the left, should not we all conclude that new Labour is dead and buried?

Gordon Brown: The same old Tory party—it cannot even talk to the trade unions. In the past year, we have made the big decisions about the future of the country. Nuclear power: we decided; the Conservatives ducked it. Airport expansion: we are deciding; they have ducked it. Three million houses: we are deciding; they have ducked it. Today, on planning, we are deciding, and once again they are ducking it.
	The right hon. Gentleman's year started with the indecision over grammar schools and has ended with him losing his shadow Home Secretary. For him, politics is just show business; it is devoid of substance and is opposition for opposition's sake. You can get by without substance some of the time, but you cannot get by without substance all of the time.

Richard Burden: This Saturday, more than 100 representatives of voluntary organisations and other organisations in my constituency will get together with the police, the city council, the fire service and other statutory agencies to examine how we can best work together to combat crime. All hon. Members know that one of the things that often inhibits people from reporting crimes or standing up to antisocial behaviour is the fear of reprisal or intimidation. My right hon. Friend said a few moments ago that there were plans in relation to witness anonymity. Will he say a little more about that, and about how we can best reassure people that we will back them when they stand up for their local community?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The policies that we are proposing will mean punishment and prevention of crime. It is quite wrong to deprive witnesses of their anonymity when it is needed, especially when we are dealing with organised crime, witness intimidation and gang and gun-related crime. That is why the Secretary of State for Justice will announce tomorrow that we will bring forward legislation to clarify the situation arising from the court's judgment. We want to make sure that there is a right for the courts to offer anonymity, as the police and so many other people have asked for in the last few days. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell his seminar on Saturday that we will continue with our policies to ensure that the public are properly protected against crime. I also hope that the Conservatives will reconsider their former shadow Home Secretary's opposition to DNA and CCTV, and to what we are doing to make this country safe from terrorism.

Iris Robinson: On behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, may I also send our sympathies to the family and friends of the two very brave servicemen who have lost their lives? Did the Prime Minister see reports this week suggesting that the Government were going to legalise the IRA? Will he confirm that the Government's intention is not to make the IRA legal but to make it completely redundant by removing its army council?

Gordon Brown: I hear what the hon. Lady is saying, and I think that she is referring to the report that was done by Lord Carlile. We have no plans to do that at all. We believe that the provisional army council should be brought to an end as soon as possible, and we will work with all parties in Northern Ireland to maintain the stability of the settlement. I praise her party and the other parties that have been involved in making the settlement work.

Lindsay Hoyle: May I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for setting up a border police service that will protect our borders? Will he add to that an important segment? Some of our troops who have been seriously injured and might therefore no longer be suitable for front-line service want to continue to wear a uniform. They ought to be added to the border police force to protect our borders from terrorism, drug-running and illegal immigration.

Gordon Brown: We have already set up the Border and Immigration Agency, which is 25,000 strong. My hon. Friend is referring to a proposal from the Association of Chief Police Officers, which the Government are happy to consider. The Home Secretary said that at the beginning of this week. The policing Green Paper to be published shortly will look at a number of proposals for policing at the border, including that from ACPO. It will also include other proposals that may not involve structural change. I believe that we must have the strongest possible protection at our borders, and we will provide that. Again, I hope that the Conservative party will reconsider its opposition to identity cards for people coming into this country, because that is one way in which we can protect against illegal immigration.

Hugo Swire: Both our parties voted to support the extension of education to the age of 18. In East Devon, that will mean having to find approximately 450 extra places by 2015. The only obvious site available for those students in Exmouth is the recently vacated Owen building on the Rolle college campus site. While the Minister for the South West is broadly supportive of the idea that the building should continue to be used for education, the Minister for Higher Education is of the belief that it should be sold to the highest bidder. In the interests of joined-up government, and if the Prime Minister is genuinely in listening mode, will he meet a cross-party delegation from East Devon to try to break this logjam?

Gordon Brown: I will certainly look at the proposals that the hon. Gentleman is putting forward. In his local authority area, there are two new schools; 19 schools have been rebuilt; 390 additional classrooms have been provided; and funding per pupil has risen substantially. There are also 600 more teachers and 1,800 more teaching assistants. That is a Labour Government working, and it would not have happened if we had accepted the Conservative party's advice not to spend more on education.

Karen Buck: When the Labour Mayor introduced free bus travel for children and young Londoners, it was warmly welcomed, especially by low-income families. Although it makes sense to require young people to carry identification to tackle bad behaviour, does my right hon. Friend know that, due to delays in processing identity cards, increasing numbers of young people are being turned away from buses, and low-income families are being fined for being on buses without identification? Will he use his good offices with the Mayor of London to ensure that that mess is sorted out and that a good policy does not turn sour because of bad administration?

Gordon Brown: I want every child to benefit from the three-year bus pass set up by the previous Mayor, for which the whole of London is grateful. I have been denied the chance to raise the matter with the Mayor since he vacated his seat in this House, but the Transport Secretary will be in touch with him very soon.

Norman Baker: As a Scottish MP, the Prime Minister will have noticed the strong success of the recently reopened railway between Stirling and Alloa, where passenger numbers are currently three times greater than the projected figure for 2011, and the reopened line to Ebbw Vale in Wales is similarly a success story. If reopening lines in Scotland and Wales makes such good economic sense, why has the Department for Transport ruled out, despite the strong social and environmental case, reopening lines in England, such as the line from Lewes to Uckfield?

Gordon Brown: Last year, we said that we want to double the capacity of the existing network, which includes the whole of the United Kingdom. We have invited Network Rail to examine options for supporting further growth, which might include new lines and electrification. The hon. Gentleman will find that Network Rail and the Government are looking at those issues. I also hope that he acknowledges that we have committed £10 billion to increasing capacity over the next five years, which will result in the single biggest increase in capacity for a generation, 1,300 new carriages and funding for major projects in all parts of the country. We are honouring our commitment to the railways of this country, which is why more people are using the railways than at any time since the 1940s.

Stephen Pound: Next week, the nation will celebrate the 60th birthday of a much-loved national institution. May I, as an eminent sexagenarian, ask my young friend the Prime Minister what action he is taking to ensure that we have not only a better national health service, but the best national health service?

Gordon Brown: We are very proud of our national health service, and we want to make it better in the years to come. That is why we want more access to GP services; that is why have agreed a new contract with GPs; that is why we have been building more hospitals; that is why we are determined to deal with the problems of cleanliness in hospitals; that is why we are employing more doctors and nurses; and that is why we are investing £15 billion over the next 10 years in cures for cancer and other diseases, so Britain can and will remain a world leader. We introduced the national health service in 1948, and I hope that the parties that did not support us then will support us in the future.

Peter Bottomley: The Prime Minister's script included references to ducking, so perhaps he would like to support the "Birdman" competition off Worthing pier in the first weekend in July. If the Prime Minister cannot do that, will he consider meeting the operators of seaside arcades, who will not benefit from today's decision to give help to bingo halls? Many of those gentle gaming machine operators are suffering greatly, while the Government appear to have increased serious gambling by deliberate decision.

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman may know that I met a delegation of Members of Parliament from seaside towns last week—I am happy to meet representatives from seaside towns. We are determined to bring greater economic prosperity to the seaside towns and resorts of our country, of which we are very proud.
	On the specific question, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the Minister for Sport is announcing today that the Government intend to consult on whether bingo halls should be permitted to offer additional gaming machines. We will also bring forward to this year the review of stakes and prizes on lower categories of gaming machines. We are determined to do everything that we can to maintain a healthy industry and to make our seaside resorts even more successful in the years to come.

Gordon Banks: Twenty-four hours ago, a young constituent of mine who suffers from cystic fibrosis had a life-saving double lung transplant. In a year celebrating the 60th anniversary of the NHS, I can think of no better tribute to the NHS or the donor family than saving a life. When will my right hon. Friend be able to come back to the House to report on the work being done by the organ donation taskforce that is looking forward towards an opt-out system?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Any life saved as a result of the willingness of a family, or of someone who is himself losing his life, is something that we should both welcome and celebrate in respect of what has been achieved for a young life. As my hon. Friend knows, cystic fibrosis is one of the most difficult diseases and work is now being done on a cure for it.
	My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we have proposals to change the system for organ donors. I believe that there is a general welcome in the country for taking further action. At the moment, only about 25 per cent. of the country are carrying donor cards, but according to surveys 90 per cent. believe that they would be prepared to make their organs available. We want to find a way to a better system. There are legal implications in all the proposals. We will come back to the House soon, but all of us will want to do more to save lives in this country.

James Brokenshire: How would the Prime Minister characterise his first year in office—"Casino Royale" or "Temple of Doom"?

Gordon Brown: I have learned in the first year that every day difficult decisions have to be made—education to 18, the lowest waiting lists in history, neighbourhood policing, more people in work than ever before. I am proud of our achievements.

HMRC

Alistair Darling: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the final report by Kieran Poynter, chairman of PricewaterhouseCoopers, into the loss of child benefit records at Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs last year. I should also tell the House that the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which conducted its own investigation of the loss, is publishing its report today. The IPCC found no evidence of misconduct or criminality by any member of staff at HMRC. The Cabinet Secretary has also published today his wider cross-Government work to improve data handling. Both the Poynter and IPCC reports are available in the Vote Office and will be placed in the Library of the House. I am grateful to Kieran Poynter and his team and to the IPCC for their extensive work. Both have provided a very full and detailed account of what happened.
	Improving information security is a challenge that every organisation is facing. In recent years, we have seen problems in both the public and private sectors as organisations struggle to keep pace with the development of technology in data storage and transfer. The public are entitled to expect Government Departments to ensure that their personal details are kept safe and it is therefore essential that we do everything we can to minimise the chances of this sort of loss happening again.
	I deliberately gave Mr Poynter wide-ranging terms of reference, not just because of the seriousness of this loss but because, as I said in my statement on 20 November, I was concerned about previous losses of data by HMRC. In my statements to the House on 20 November and 17 December last year, I set out the circumstances surrounding the events that led to the loss of the child benefit data and the immediate action taken. My priorities then were to locate the missing discs and to ensure that adequate safeguards were in place to monitor the bank and building society accounts of those who could have been affected.
	Despite extensive searches by Revenue and Customs and the police, the discs have not been found, but I can tell the House that I am advised that there is no evidence of any fraudulent activity as a result of the loss. Revenue and Customs took a series of immediate steps at that time, including a complete ban on the transfer of bulk data without adequate security protection, measures to prevent the downloading of data without the necessary safeguards and the immediate disabling of the ability to download data from all desktop and laptop computers within the organisation.
	Kieran Poynter's report is in two parts. The first part deals with the circumstances giving rise to the loss, and the second part deals with his wider findings and recommendations. He examined in detail the circumstances surrounding the earlier transfer of data in March 2007, to which I referred in my statements in the House. He found that in March, because the Revenue and Customs staff then involved were unaware of the relevant guidance, which in itself lacked clarity, they did not escalate the request to the appropriate level of seniority before releasing data to the National Audit Office. As a result, no senior Revenue and Customs official was asked to permit the NAO to take the data off-site to conduct its analysis, and no such official knew that this was envisaged.
	Mr. Poynter has concluded that these events in March last year created a precedent that allowed a similar transfer to take place in October without the appropriate level of authorisation or adequate consideration of the security risks of releasing such a large amount of personal information. He says that senior managers were unaware that the data had been moved from Revenue and Customs premises in March and October until the loss of data was subsequently reported to them. He concludes that the data loss incident arose following a sequence of communications failures between junior HMRC officials and between them and the National Audit Office. However, he finds that the loss was entirely avoidable and that the fact that it could have happened points to serious institutional deficiencies at Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. First, information security was not the management priority that it should have been. Secondly, management structures and governance were unnecessarily complex and did not establish clear lines of accountability. Moreover, he points to a lack of clarity in communications and the failure to involve senior HMRC staff as being contributing factors in both cases. Mr. Poynter makes it clear in his report that both those failings have now been addressed. He acknowledges the progress that the department has made since last November.
	Revenue and Customs is a complex organisation, operating from some 900 sites and sending out more than 300 million items of mail a year. Against this background, Mr. Poynter sets out the action that has been taken to make information security a priority. That includes the appointment of a chief risk officer; new, clearer security guidance; and a wide-ranging programme of training to raise awareness of security issues among staff. He also sets out the action that has been taken to simplify management structures and governance. He acknowledges the new organisational structure as a positive step forward.
	Mr. Poynter's team has worked closely with Revenue and Customs, particularly the teams that process large volumes of personal data or provide corporate services such as IT. By providing detailed recommendations to the organisation as its work progressed, rather than leaving them to the final report, the review team has been able to support Revenue and Customs and help it to make good progress in implementing its recommendations. However, Mr. Poynter states that
	"a great deal of work will be required to bring HMRC up to and to sustain the world class standard for information security to which it now properly aspires."
	In all, he makes 45 recommendations, all of which have been accepted. Revenue and Customs has made good progress on 39 of the recommendations, including 13 that have been fully implemented, and work is continuing on the remaining recommendations.
	Mr. Poynter also makes a number of recommendations on the way in which Revenue and Customs operates and the fragmentation and complexity of its IT systems. The organisation is already addressing these issues and will spend £155 million on improving data security over the next three years. The 45 recommendations, when fully implemented, will reduce the risk of a serious breach in the future and ensure that HMRC achieves the highest standards of information security.
	Kieran Poynter states that the decision to merge the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise was the right one, but he says that the management structure subsequently adopted was not suitable—exactly the same failing as was identified in the capability review carried out by an independent panel overseen by the Cabinet Secretary and published last December. In acknowledging the significant changes that the organisation has undergone, Mr. Poynter judges that
	"these changes individually and collectively represent good decisions which have created the platform from which to build a high quality, efficient administration."
	In order to build from that platform, the management need to continue to address the issues highlighted by Mr. Poynter in his wider review and the capability review. In particular, Revenue and Customs' security procedures must be improved to ensure that information security is a management priority and, importantly, management must raise staff morale. Mr. Poynter acknowledges the new organisational structure put in place earlier this year as a crucial step and makes recommendations to develop it further. He concludes that his findings represent an opportunity to modernise work practices and systems, which will make the organisation more efficient, as well as rebuild its reputation for data security.
	I am grateful to Dave Hartnett, the acting chairman who has overseen these improvements and has led the organisation through a difficult time. Yesterday, Mike Clasper, who has considerable business experience, was appointed as chairman of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, and he and Dave Hartnett have made it clear that the implementation of the Poynter recommendations and, crucially, the importance of information security will be priorities. The Information Commissioner, who has been kept informed since the outset, has indicated that this review has investigated all the facts and issues with which he needs to be concerned, and he fully supports all of Kieran Poynter's recommendations. The Information Commissioner proposes to serve the appropriate enforcement notice on Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs under the Data Protection Act 1998.
	It is quite clear that the loss was entirely avoidable, and again, I apologise unreservedly to everyone who has been affected. HMRC employs tens of thousands of people who work hard and who are dedicated to providing an excellent service to the public. The staff are entitled to expect clarity about how they discharge their duties. The public are entitled to expect that their privacy is respected and that the security of highly personal information is the highest priority. It is essential that we now implement these recommendations, and I commend this statement to the House.

George Osborne: Let us remember that the first duty of any Government is to protect the security of its citizens, and that this Government breached that duty when they lost the names and addresses of every child in the country and the bank account details of 10 million parents. We thank Kieran Poynter and the Independent Police Complaints Commission for their work—they certainly do not pull any punches. They offer a truly devastating account of incompetence and systemic failure at the heart of this Government, which is a guide on how not to govern this country.
	So the first question we ask today is: who is responsible? Last November, the Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the fault lay with what he called "a junior official" who acted
	"contrary to all HMRC standing procedures".—[ Official Report, 20 November 2007; Vol. 467, c. 1101.]
	The Prime Minister repeated the charge, and his spokesman said that
	"this was about an individual breach in procedures, not about failure in the procedures as such".
	How can those statements, one of which was to the House of Commons, possibly be reconciled with today's reports? Page 7 of the Poynter report says that the review team
	"has not encountered any evidence of...knowing disregard for policy or procedure in any of the circumstances leading to this loss."
	As the Chancellor has just conceded, the IPCC says that there is
	"no evidence whatsoever of misconduct by any member of HMRC".
	Both reports clearly say that the data loss was symptomatic of a wider problem and list a catalogue of systemic failures. Has not the ignoble attempt by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to pile the blame for their administrative failures on a single junior official at HMRC been comprehensively blown out of the water today?
	The second question I have for the Chancellor is: who allowed one of the largest Departments in Government to develop a culture, in which, to quote from the reports—I could give many more quotes, but I shall give these— morale is "low", communication is poor, staff are denied
	"adequate support, training or guidance",
	there is
	"no visible management of data security at any level",
	the management structure adopted is not suitable, there are serious questions of governance and accountability and the whole department displays a "muddle through ethos"?
	Who is actually responsible for this? This is not some obscure Government agency on the fringes of Whitehall; it is one of the largest Departments of Government that holds the personal data and intimate financial details of every single citizen in the country. The Chancellor himself admits that the Department he runs has serious institutional deficiencies. So can he tell us—do not worry, no one's listening—who he thinks is responsible? Could it possibly be the person, who for 10 years—longer than anyone else in modern history—ran this Department? Could it be the person who is now the Prime Minister, who created this new Department and did not put in place adequate management structures, as identified in the report? Will the Chancellor firmly place the blame on the Minister responsible—the man who is now the Prime Minister?
	Thirdly and finally, how can we have any confidence that there will be no repeat of this breach of security? The Chancellor talks about the 39 recommendations that are being implemented in his Department, and he says that he accepts them all. Could he tell us about the six that are not currently being implemented, but were recommended in the report, and which he says will be implemented, so we can hold him to account? Does he remember the Prime Minister promising at the time of the data loss seven months ago that every Department and agency would follow proper procedure from then on in protecting personal data? Will he confirm that, since the Prime Minister made that promise, 12 major breaches of security have occurred across Whitehall, 3 million driving licence details were lost in December, 168,000 confidential NHS records on children were lost at Christmas, a laptop containing the names and passport numbers of 600,000 military recruits was stolen from the boot of a car in January, secret papers on terrorism were left on a train not once, but twice—all capped this month by the revelation that a Cabinet Minister had broken Cabinet rules and left her laptop, which contained sensitive files and should never have been taken out of Whitehall, in a constituency office?
	If we add it all up, we find that the Government have lost 37 million items of personal data in the past year alone. With such a record, how can they even consider proceeding with plans for a compulsory ID card for every citizen of the country? Will the Chancellor at least live up to his previous view on ID cards and confirm that they have been abandoned today?
	After a year in office—it is the Chancellor's anniversary, too—briefed against by Downing street, tipped for the sack by his colleagues, the Chancellor's only achievement is to be regarded as more incompetent than the man planning to sack him. Last autumn, he blamed a junior official for his fate. Today, the review that he establishes blames the culture of the Department that he runs and that the Prime Minister created. Does not that give us a damning insight into the Government's culture? They are cavalier with their citizens' privacy, casual with the public's security and wholly incompetent in handling even the basic functions of the state.

Alistair Darling: I appreciate that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) probably has not had time to read the report from cover to cover, but if he looks at the back, he will realise that it sets out the 45 recommendations and shows those that have been implemented, those that are under way and those that need further consideration.
	On the hon. Gentleman's comments about the junior official, it was he who tried to suggest that it was all the fault of one individual in an article—I believe in  The Sunday Telegraph—after I made my main statement in November. I set out the facts as I had been told them. I stand by what I said at that time, as I made clear subsequently, and nothing in the report contradicts those facts. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman cares to read the report, he will see that it makes it clear that the discussions about whether to release the information in March and again in November took place among junior staff and the matter was not elevated to the senior civil service as it should have been.
	The report also states—here the hon. Gentleman has a better point—that the management should have ensured that the staff knew the rules. The Poynter report makes it clear that, as I said in November, there were rules in place to prevent such disclosure, but the staff were not properly made aware of them. The failure was that the management did not have clear lines of accountability—the complex system of management installed after the merger was not suitable, as Poynter states. The review finds substantial failings on the part of the senior management in not ensuring that their junior staff understood the procedures. In particular, it finds that, first, when the request came in to transfer so much information, it should have been cleared by a member of the senior civil service, and secondly that it was possible to have transferred the data far more securely because secure methods were available. Thirdly, the amount of information could have been reduced to the minimum required by the National Audit Office; in other words, not all the details needed to be transferred.
	The hon. Gentleman is right—I agree with him and the report's conclusions—that there were serious failings in HMRC's operation. I asked Kieran Poynter to examine what was going on because I was worried that the incident was not the only one that I had to tackle. In my then short time as Chancellor, I had already come across two other serious incidents. I asked Kieran Poynter to investigate because it was clear to me that other matters needed to be examined, as the report reveals today.
	The hon. Gentleman then asked what measures had been taken. I have set out, as has the Poynter report, a number of the measures that have been taken, but he is quite right about another matter. Across government—indeed not just in the public sector, but in the private sector—people have failed to come to terms with the implications of the fact that vast amounts of information are now stored electronically and can be transferred at the touch of a button. The security systems and precautionary measures that should be in place were not in place in that case; indeed, there are many other organisations where I suspect they are not in place either. People must understand that we live in a changed world. We need to change the way in which we operate, both in Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and elsewhere. I am determined to ensure that that happens.

John McFall: I welcome the Poynter statement, which confirms the earlier, tentative conclusions of the Select Committee on Treasury that what happened was entirely avoidable and that communication between junior HMRC staff and senior managers was non-existent. Can the Chancellor assure us that HMRC is not a dysfunctional Department, as was suggested in some earlier Committee hearings? Indeed, that is an issue that we will take up with the new chief executive, Mike Clasper, whose appointment I welcome. Can the Chancellor also put the public's mind at rest by confirming that information security will now be a priority not only for HMRC, but across all Departments?

Alistair Darling: On that point, no one who is responsible for running any organisation—Revenue and Customs or any other organisation that holds highly sensitive information—should be in any doubt that individual security must be their No. 1 priority. I am glad that my right hon. Friend welcomes the appointment of Mike Clasper, who has considerable business experience. He is determined to ensure under his chairmanship the security of people's personal information. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) was quite right: every one of us deals with HMRC at some stage of our lives, if not throughout our lives. It is essential that people understand that the information that they handle is highly personal and highly sensitive, and must be treated with the care that that entails.
	I want to ensure, as I know Mike Clasper and Dave Hartnett, the acting chairman of HMRC, do, that the culture changes and, crucially, that the changes that they have made in management, so that it is now clear who is accountable for each line of business, mean that we can reduce the risks that were endemic in the management culture that was put in place after the merger of the two institutions, but which was patently not suitable for the tasks that it had to face.

Vincent Cable: To date, the semantics of incompetence have been reasonably clear. We have had "systemic failure", which is the responsibility of Ministers, and "procedural failure", which is the failure of individual officials. We now have something new called "cultural failure", which is an all-pervasive management mess for which everybody is to blame, but no individual is responsible. Can the Chancellor therefore go back to the question that the Conservative spokesman fairly asked him at the outset: which individuals now carry responsibility, beyond Mr. Gray, who left voluntarily with a golden goodbye?
	Is not the Conservative spokesman right that the responsibility indeed lies with the current Prime Minister, albeit for one specific decision that he made? That was the decision to remove 24,000 staff at the Inland Revenue, the consequence of which is that it is now hopelessly ill equipped to handle the growing complexity of the tax system and tax credits. There has been a breakdown in face-to-face relationships, particularly with small businesses, and the institution is hopelessly understaffed to cope with the complexities of tax avoidance and evasion, which are happening on a large scale in the City and among the rich of this country.
	Specifically on data security, what lessons have been learned, when we discover from the Information Commissioner that there have been no fewer than 100 breaches of data security since last November? Is there not a growing diversity of data breach, involving not merely CDs, but memory sticks, laptops and paper files, and a growing variety of places where these things are lost, including on trains, in backs of cars and in bars? As has already been said, the issue is the integrity not simply of the ID system, but of any centralised Government database of the kind that has been accumulated, for example, under the NHS scheme.
	What lessons have been learned about basic management efficiencies last November, when the Select Committee on Public Accounts published a report only a month ago saying that the Inland Revenue had lost £2.8 billion of revenue as a result of false reporting by taxpayers, which it is unwilling or unable to follow up? What lessons have been learned about the Inland Revenue's IT system, when only a few weeks ago the Economic Secretary to the Treasury had to report a programme failure, such that 100,000 poor people were not receiving their payments under the trust scheme?
	My final point is this. There are very few private sector companies that are as managerially inefficient as HMRC, but there are some. One of them is BAA, a private monopoly whose reputation for consumer service is legendary in the worst possible way. Is there not an irony in the fact that the failed chief executive of that appalling company is now being appointed as the chairman of HMRC?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman raised a number of sensible points, but the last one was not particularly sensible. Mike Clasper actually left BAA when it was taken over by Ferrovial in 2006, and some of the difficulties that have arisen happened rather more recently than that.
	The hon. Gentleman raised a number of points, but I should like to deal first with his one about cost. Rather like the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Gentleman will not have had a chance to read the report, but he might want to look at chapter IX, in which Mr. Poynter says:
	"It should be noted...that my team did not find any evidence of cost efficiency in the form of headcount reduction adding to information security risk."
	Mr. Poynter then makes the point that there are a number of people who are surplus to what will be required, but still on the payroll, and they could help with the work. The hon. Gentleman's first point is therefore rather contradicted by what Kieran Poynter found. The hon. Gentleman would have had a better point if he had raised questions about staff morale, which is clearly a problem. However, Kieran Poynter draws attention to the fact that Dave Hartnett, the acting chairman, has gone to considerable trouble over the past six months to meet staff up and down the country. I believe that management are now focused on the need to ensure that they take staff with them.
	The hon. Gentleman then raised a number of other matters. He is right that the Information Commissioner has had reported to him a number—about 150, not 100—of cases since November, but they have been in both the public and private sectors. That brings me back to the first point that I made in my statement, as well as to the general point that Mr. Poynter made, which is that there is a generalised problem, in that people have not woken up to the fact that procedures that might have been appropriate when everything was stored on paper files are inappropriate and not robust enough for when information is stored electronically. To put it bluntly, if someone had asked for the records of 25 million child benefit recipients 20 years ago, they could not have had them transferred. We can now do that at the touch of a button. That is why the culture needs to change.
	Similarly, in relation to people taking laptops home, which is commonplace in the public and private sectors—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has issued a written statement today on the problems that the Ministry of Defence experienced last autumn—we need to ensure that people realise the nature of what they are carrying. If they are carrying sensitive material, they have to ask themselves whether it is necessary to do so. If it is, they must ensure adequate safeguards and encryption, to ensure that if something goes wrong, no one can access that information. All those things are highlighted in the Poynter report, including areas where HMRC could be more efficient, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. He drew attention to the fact that changing the IT systems would not only make the system more secure, but help provide the public with a better service.

Andrew Miller: Will my right hon. Friend expand a little on what he said about training? There is a cultural problem in many large organisations in both the public and private sectors, whereby people's understanding of the nature, scale and importance of data today has become weak, as he said. As I understand it, all 90,000 HMRC employees are to undergo a training programme. Will that be a rolling programme, and will the fact that members of staff have undertaken that training be transparent among them, so that there can be an incentive inside the organisation? If he can demonstrate best practice, will he ensure that it is shared across Departments, so that we can extend the work arising from Poynter's recommendations to all Departments in this vital area?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend identifies a key point, to which Kieran Poynter attaches importance. Poynter makes the point that in his own organisation, PricewaterhouseCoopers, it is necessary for employees to go through training not just initially, but regularly, so that they are kept up to date. That is mandatory—it is part of the requirements—and the same culture and approach need to be applied in Revenue and Customs. Although in this case a great deal of discussion took place at junior level and guidance and procedures were in place, the problem was that management should have ensured that the staff concerned actually knew that they should do some things and not do other things. Ultimately, the management are responsible for that.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) asked who runs Revenue and Customs. A board is established to run it; it is detached from Ministers, for the very good reason that Ministers should not be involved in people's tax affairs. The importance of the issue is recognised by Dave Hartnett, who has done an excellent job over the rather difficult period of the last six months, and Mike Clasper, who will be bringing in a lot of expertise from outside. They will make a big difference. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) is absolutely right about the importance of training, awareness of the rules and awareness of what people are actually handling, which I have mentioned time and again. It is not just a CD, because a small CD may contain the intimate details of a large section of the population. People need to remember that.

Edward Leigh: On 17 December, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told me, as recorded in  Hansard at columns 619 and 620, that I was wrong in saying that a senior executive officer had refused the request of the National Audit Office to strip out personal details. Later that afternoon, in the Public Accounts Committee, Dave Hartnett, the acting chairman, confirmed that it was a senior executive officer—a senior officer in those terms—who had made that decision. Today, the Poynter report is published, and chapter IV.20 reads:
	"Later on 12 March... EmployeeF forwarded EmployeeD's email of 11.59am to... an Executive Officer in the IMS... Unit...copied to EmployeeC (a Senior Executive Officer in IMS), and EmployeeK (a Higher Executive officer in IMS)."
	In other words, I was right to say on 17 December that this was copied to a senior executive officer. Will the Chancellor put the record straight?

Alistair Darling: No, the hon. Gentleman is not right. Perhaps I could refer him to part 1, chapter IV.5. Since he set so much store on what is said, I had better read it out to the whole House. As a prelude to explaining what happened in March and October, Poynter states:
	"The staff grades of those aware of provision of the discs containing the CBCS data to the NAO include 'Senior Officer', 'Manager', 'Higher Executive Officer', and others which to the uninformed reader may suggest a high level of seniority within HMRC. These are administrative grades and none of those aware of the situation were members of the Senior Civil Service within HMRC."
	As I have said throughout the process, I have set out the facts as I was told them. There is nothing in this report to contradict that at all. For obvious reasons, the hon. Gentleman has close relations with the National Audit Office, but he should also look at the exchanges that took place between the NAO and HMRC. The Poynter report refers to them in the next couple of paragraphs, where it says that a senior director of the NAO wrote to HMRC apologising for the fact that the procedures were not operated as they should have been. I have been at pains not to apportion blame to people where it is not justified. All I am saying to the hon. Gentleman is that there are lessons here to be learned for everyone. As to his first point, I said what I said, I stand by it and the paragraph I have cited rather bears it out.

Alun Michael: It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of this statement and I welcome my right hon. Friend's undertaking to act quickly and comprehensively. I also welcome the IPCC report, which will be of particular interest to the Select Committee on Justice. Does he accept that media comment often swings between two extremes, as does public sentiment? When there is a loss of data, it goes to the "Keep nothing and abandon identity cards" instinctive reaction, but when other events, such as the Soham murders, take place, it swings to the other extreme of "Keep everything and share everything". Will my right hon. Friend reject both extremes? Does he agree that it is necessary to engender a culture of appropriate sharing of data and professional data management, and to engender such an environment from permanent secretary down to the newest recruit in every Department? Will he put across to permanent secretaries the message that what they need to engender is professionalism, not panic?

Alistair Darling: I agree with my right hon. Friend. It is a fact of life that many organisations hold substantial information on all of us, whether in the Government or the private sector. If we go into a supermarket with a supermarket card, that information is being held, and I understand that it can sometimes give a pretty comprehensive account of people's lifestyles. We have to ensure that in the public or private sector, but particularly in government, where we have clear responsibility, everyone understands the importance of the information that they hold. They must realise that if the public impart information to the state either voluntarily or because they have to, they expect the highest possible standards in how it is looked after. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: everyone needs to understand that, from the top to the bottom of every organisation.

Hywel Williams: Clearly, centralisation of data processing and storage means that any loss, howsoever caused, is potentially catastrophic. Should not anyone concerned about data security react with dismay at HMRC's current proposals further to centralise the service with the closure of local offices?

Alistair Darling: I am not aware of anything in the Poynter report to suggest that centralising offices would have any bearing whatever on the problem that arose here.

Gordon Prentice: Poynter recommends the appointment of a chief risk officer. How many risk officers are there in HMRC and are there not data protection officers in every civil service department? If so, were they not asleep in their job? As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) asked, who is actually carrying the can? Has anyone been reprimanded, let alone disciplined?

Alistair Darling: On the last point, my hon. Friend will know that the then chairman of HMRC resigned last November. On chief risk officers, the point is that someone very senior in the organisation needs to be responsible for making sure that risks are addressed. As to the exact number of people responsible, I shall write to my hon. Friend because I do not want to give him a wrong figure. He is basically making the same point as everyone else: in every organisation, people need to be acutely aware of the sensitivity of the information handled and to ensure that it is handled properly and that the safeguards are as strong as they possibly can be.

Tim Farron: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer think that the culture of HMRC offices is improved by threats to close them? Does he accept that plans to close the excellent tax office in Kendal, for example, are demoralising staff and will reduce the ability of HMRC to bring in revenue? Will he commit to call off the planned closures, which would only exacerbate the problems identified in the report?

Alistair Darling: I perfectly well understand that when there is any proposal to reorganise or close offices, it is not a happy time for the staff concerned and the management need to do their best to try to address that. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, however—I appreciate that he may not want to impart this to his own constituents—that every organisation must from time to time look at how it is organised and see whether it can be more efficient and provide a better service. We can always argue about whether a specific proposal achieves that, but to argue that there should never be any change is not a credible position. As I said to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), who represents a different party, there is absolutely nothing in the report to suggest that anything in the current reorganisations has had anything whatever to do with the difficulties mentioned in it.

Peter Bottomley: May I say to the Chancellor that he should speak for himself rather than delegates? Will he tell us how many people have been chairmen or acting chairmen of HMRC during its existence? I put it to him that, despite all the problems highlighted by my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, there are hundreds of thousands of people in the civil service who are well trained and well led, and who carry out their job with great dedication. For all the attention that we are rightly giving today to the problems illustrated by the report, their work should be honoured, and many of us think that senior executive officers and higher executive officers are rather senior positions.

Alistair Darling: As Poynter says, an uninformed reader might reach that conclusion. He therefore explains the difference between junior and senior civil servants. I do not want to embark on a lecture on grades, because it would probably not be appropriate, but I will say—this relates to the hon. Gentleman's more general point, and also to a point that I made in my statement—that more than 80,000 people work for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, providing an excellent service and aspiring to do the very best that they can. Those people are entitled to ensure that their employers, their management, give them the guidance and training that they need in order to do their jobs properly.
	I do not think that anyone would want to be in the position in which some officials found themselves. Poynter has discovered serious failings, which are being addressed. Constant vigilance is needed to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen again. There are always risks, but those risks need to be managed.
	As for the hon. Gentleman's first point, of course it is my duty to report to the House. I am ultimately responsible for this matter, and I have always accepted that.

Chris Mole: My right hon. Friend will want the House to know that other Departments have already taken action. On the day when I visited my local Crown Prosecution Service office, laptops were being taken in and out while they were fitted with encryption software. There as elsewhere—as many Members have pointed out—the question is how to focus the minds of those handling data on the need to treat it with sensitivity. Does my right hon. Friend think that the time has come to impose, across Government, a severe penalty for misuse of or inappropriate access to data, similar to the penalty contained in the Identity Cards Act 2006 to protect the national identity register?

Alistair Darling: As I said in my statement, Sir Gus O'Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, published his conclusions today following an examination of practice across Government, with new rules and procedures, but disciplinary procedures already exist. A recent case in which material was left on a train by an official in the Treasury has been dealt with through the Department's normal procedures.
	That returns me to a point that I made earlier. Twenty years ago, people did not have laptops to take home. It must be understood that a comparatively small laptop can contain confidential information affecting thousands if not millions of individuals. People must change their whole approach: they must ask "Do I need to take this thing home"—or wherever—"and if I do, what safeguards exist?" If we can change the culture so that security is first and foremost in people's minds, that will go a long way towards dealing with some of the problems that we face,

Greg Clark: The extraordinary thing about the Chancellor's statement is that not once did he mention the role of Ministers, although the Cabinet Office rules are clear: Ministers are ultimately responsible for the production and enforcement of those rules. How can we have any confidence in the reforms that the Chancellor proposes if he seeks to blame the management culture, but also seeks to avoid any steps that would tackle the culture of mismanagement and carelessness among Ministers?

Alistair Darling: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman was present for most of the statement, but if he was, he will know that I made clear who was ultimately responsible for these matters, and also made clear the need to ensure that management are in place who can run the organisation efficiently and effectively, with security at the very front of their minds. The Poynter recommendations will allow us to do that, and I want to ensure that it happens.

Julia Goldsworthy: The Chancellor has acknowledged the dangers surrounding the ability to hold large numbers of electronic records in one place, but does not data security also relate to paper records? Head count reductions do not merely generate efficiency, but result in the holding of large numbers of records centrally. For example, records on small businesses that are currently held in my local tax office in Redruth are all to be moved to Peterborough, and all opening and sorting of mail will also be centralised. Will that not result in more paper records flying around in the post, not fewer, and should not HMRC be considering the issue as part of its wider data protection considerations?

Alistair Darling: Not necessarily. I agree with the hon. Lady that if records are taken from her constituency to any other location they need to be carried securely, but I disagree with the argument underlying the point made by her and by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). It cannot possibly be argued that structures can never change. I know it can be uncomfortable when local offices close—we have all had that experience from time to time—but the way in which HMRC is currently organised, with several hundred sites, needs to be examined.
	The crucial point is that, whether information is transmitted physically in files or electronically, we must ensure that security is at the forefront of our minds.

Ben Wallace: According to section 4.2 of the Manual of Protective Security,
	"Each department and agency is responsible, under its Minister, for maintaining its own appropriate levels of protective security."
	If the Department had been observing the manual's requirements, it would have produced—following a risk assessment and a risk management process—a formal document that would have been submitted by the departmental security officer to the heads of the Department for review and sign-off. Can the Chancellor tell us which of his Ministers examined and signed off such a document? If none of his Ministers did, does he not recognise and take responsibility for the fact that his Department's Ministers abdicated their leadership at the very time when HMRC needed it?

Alistair Darling: No, I do not accept that. What I do accept is that, as Poynter has found, the systems in place were inadequate. They were complex and there were no clear lines of accountability, and that needs to be addressed. It is important for all Poynter's recommendations to be adopted and accepted.

Philip Hollobone: My constituents were appalled at the loss of their personal information by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, and disappointed that no Treasury Minister had accepted personal responsibility by resigning. Given that many other Departments hold extensive personal information on millions of individuals, can the Chancellor give my constituents a clear indication of what practical steps he will take, together with the Cabinet Office, to ensure that such catastrophic data loss does not happen again in future?

Alistair Darling: If the hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to read Kieran Poynter's report and recommendations, he will see what has been done, what is being done at the moment and what is proposed for the future. He should also read the Cabinet Secretary's review of security across Government and its recommendations. I think that that will help to answer some of his questions.

Andrew George: The Chancellor rather dismissed the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about the management culture that has led to the closure of many local offices. However, he acknowledged in all his responses that the present culture needs to change. Does he not also acknowledge that part of the cultural failure is due to the modern fad of Powerpoint-wielding management consultants who imply that remote and centralised management always knows best? That is a part of the culture that does need to be questioned, because it will otherwise result in a break in the connection with the real world, a loss of established staff and future systems failures.

Alistair Darling: I am not a great one for Powerpoint presentations myself, and I hope that the House will never change its rules to allow anyone to conduct one here, but, to be fair, I do not think that Powerpoint presentations or the lack of them had any bearing on this incident.
	I understand perfectly well the points made by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues about the closure of local offices. Such decisions can be hard, and there is bound to be controversy from time to time. What I do not accept is the underlying premise, and the impression sometimes given by Liberal Democrats—unwittingly, I am sure—that it is somehow possible to make an organisation better and more efficient without any change taking place at any time. I do not think that that can possibly be a sustainable argument.
	What must be recognised is that, as Kieran Poynter has observed, there were failings in this instance. We need to address them, and in particular to do all that we can to raise the morale of staff. They understand that change is necessary, but they want to be supported through that change, and that is what the new management are determined to do.

Pitt Report

Hilary Benn: Sir Michael Pitt has today published his final report on last summer's flooding. I thank Sir Michael and his team for the professional way in which they have gone about their work of identifying the lessons to be learned. I also welcome the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report, to which Government are responding today.
	This month marks the first anniversary of the start of the floods. The lives of many people and businesses were turned upside down and the costs—human and financial—were considerable. Our thoughts will, above all, be with the families of those who lost loved ones, as well as with communities still trying to recover. I am sure the House will wish to thank all those who have worked so hard to help those affected over the past 12 months, and I would like to pay tribute to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey), the floods recovery Minister.
	As Sir Michael says:
	"Last summer's flooding was exceptional".
	While we recognise both the huge emergency effort at the time and the investment over many years in flood defences—without which the effects would have been much worse—I said to the House last year that we would learn the lessons.
	Sir Michael's report sets out more than 90 recommendations including: establishing the right legislative framework to tackle flooding; clarifying who is responsible for what; ensuring that the public have all the information and guidance they need; working with essential services to assess risk and protect critical infrastructure; and having a clear recovery plan right from the start of any major emergency. I welcome Sir Michael's report and the direction it sets. We will prepare a detailed response, with a prioritised action plan, in the autumn. We have already taken a number of steps that respond to Sir Michael's findings, and I wish to report them to the House.
	The Government have made available up to £88 million, with a further £31 million to come, to help local authorities assist those in greatest need, as well as repair infrastructure and help schools and businesses to get going again. A lot has been achieved: most of those affected are now back in their homes, and we will continue to work with local authorities and the insurance industry to help the rest to return to them as soon as possible.
	Flood warnings save lives. Since last June, more than 73,000 additional people have registered with the Environment Agency flood warning system, and the EA will now automatically register properties to receive flood warnings where telephone numbers are publicly available. The EA has also improved its advice to the public and run flood awareness campaigns, and is working with the Met Office to improve the quality of flood warnings. The EA has spent £5 million on repairing defences damaged last summer. Current improvement schemes include a £5.9 million project refurbishing the Hull barrier and remedial works to culverts in Gloucester.
	As I informed the House last week, I have decided that the EA will now take on a new strategic overview role in England for managing flood risk from whatever source, and that local authorities will take responsibility for surface water management, including surface water management plans, under the EA's overview. We will now sort out the detailed arrangements for that, drawing on responses to the "Future Water" consultation and the results of the 15 pilot projects on urban drainage, which we are publishing today.
	On critical infrastructure, electricity and water providers are responsible for ensuring continuity of supply. The electricity industry has identified just over 1,000 grid and primary sites that are in flood zones, and is working with the EA to see which of them might need additional protection. Every water company is reviewing how its critical assets may be at risk from flooding in order to prioritise investment plans. This information will be used as the basis of a planned nationwide programme to improve the resilience of critical infrastructure, which the Government will produce later this year. Most local resilience forums have now been briefed on critical infrastructure in their area, and the remainder will be by the end of August.
	On reservoir safety, we will now go ahead to prepare flood maps for reservoirs coming under the Reservoirs Act 1975, and to ensure that where these are not already available, they are provided to local emergency planners before the end of 2009. They will decide the best way to ensure that communities are informed. We will also modernise reservoir safety legislation.
	The Government will produce an outline for the national flood emergency framework by the end of July, with a draft for consultation by the end of the year. This will be part of a major programme to improve preparedness for severe flooding. We will bring forward a draft floods and water Bill in the next session. That will enable us to respond to many of Sir Michael's recommendations
	The Government are increasing investment in flood-risk management from £650 million this year to £800 million in 2010-11. The EA's defences protected 100,000 properties from flooding last year, and this new investment will protect a further 145,000 homes across the country. We are also developing with the EA a long-term investment strategy for flood defence.
	We have set aside £34.5 million for priorities identified in Sir Michael's report. We will need to consider the detailed recommendations and their funding with local authorities and other partners before making a final allocation, but in order to make progress I am announcing today that at least £5 million will be made available to develop surface water management plans in the highest priority areas, and at least £1 million to improve reservoir safety, specifically for inundation mapping. I have also set aside an initial £250,000 to plan a major national floods exercise to test the new structures and arrangements being put in place, to ensure that we are better prepared in future.
	We must recognise that we can never eliminate the risk of flooding, particularly as climate change takes hold, but all of us—Government, water and electricity providers, local communities and individuals—must take flood risk seriously and be as prepared as we can be to deal with it. Sir Michael's report will help us all to do that. I know that he will be taking a close interest in its implementation, and I will invite him to attend Cabinet Committee discussions on progress. I will report further to the House in the autumn with a detailed action plan.

Peter Ainsworth: May I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and congratulate Sir Michael Pitt and his team on producing a very thorough and comprehensive report? One year on from the disastrous floods of last June, the thoughts of the whole House will be with those who tragically lost members of their families, and with those whose homes and businesses were wrecked and whose lives were indeed turned upside down.
	Anyone who has met the victims of flooding knows only too well that, as well as the physical damage to property and the disruption to daily life, there is often a lasting, less visible but none the less real, emotional impact to cope with. It is essential that everything possible is done to protect communities against the risk of flooding, and to ensure that when flooding occurs, the response is swift and efficient. I pay tribute again to the work of the emergency services last year, who in often hazardous circumstances did an extraordinary job with great determination. Those circumstances were often made even more difficult by other factors; we know from the chief fire officer that he felt that there was "institutional chaos", which affected the emergency services' work. We must learn the lessons from that.
	Although Sir Michael's interim report published last December recognised that the weather events last year were exceptional, it found that the United Kingdom's response was ill prepared. At that time, he made 15 urgent recommendations, and the Government rightly said they would act on them. However, in a progress report published in April, Sir Michael was critical, saying that insufficient action had been taken on key infrastructure and raising public awareness. He said:
	"The public remain little better prepared than they were before last summer's floods."
	What confidence can we have in the Government's promise to act on today's recommendations when previous urgent recommendations have been largely ignored?
	Sir Michael's interim report said that the floods were a "wake-up call", but after a bit of progress has been made on some of the recommendations somebody seems to have hit the snooze button. It is one year on from the floods, but three years since the Government first announced plans to give the Environment Agency a strategic overview of all types of flooding. Last week, the Government re-announced plans to extend the role of the EA as part of the proposed floods and water Bill, but there is no intention to do anything but consult on possible legislation, and then not until 2009. Is that the rapid implementation that is needed, or is it dithering?
	Last summer, the Prime Minister said, "We will do all we can to help people living in temporary accommodation after the floods." What does he say now to the 11,000 people who are still out of their homes?
	The Government also promised that local authorities affected by the floods would be compensated for the cost of clearing up. We have spoken to local authorities and they have told us that they are collectively some £50 million out of pocket, because the money that they were promised has not been delivered. Does the Secretary of State expect the council tax payer to pick up the bill?
	We welcome the report's recommendation that there should be a presumption against building in high flood risk areas, but what are the Government doing to ensure that that is implemented? The report is correct to recommend that there should be an end to the automatic right of water and sewerage companies to connect new properties to the drainage system regardless of capacity, but where is the Government's policy to deal with that and ensure that it happens?
	On critical infrastructure, the report says that
	"the approach taken by the Government to mitigating the risks from flooding and other natural hazards has been uncoordinated and reactive."
	It calls for the urgent publication of a national framework to reduce risks to our infrastructure. That was one of the "urgent recommendations" made last December. Is not vital infrastructure as vulnerable today as it was a year ago? When can we expect a national framework to be implemented?
	The Secretary of State says that flood warnings save lives, and another of last year's urgent recommendations was to introduce an opt-out telephone warning system. In April, Sir Michael warned that "insufficient progress" had been made on this. Today he says that the issue is "not yet resolved". When will it be resolved?
	Sir Michael says of his 92 recommendations that
	"strong national leadership will be needed to make them a reality."
	I suspect that what he really means by that is that more dithering simply will not do. Is not that the single most important lesson to be learned? What people are asking is when we will get strong national leadership from this Government. I fear that they know the answer.

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman thanked me for advance sight of a copy of my statement, but it is clear from what we have just heard that he did not do the House the courtesy of reading it or listening to it when I delivered it a moment ago. I do not share his assessment of the performance of the emergency services, and it is no good saying that he pays tribute to what they did. The reason that the emergency services were able to deal with the emergency in the way that they did was precisely the planning that had been put in place.
	Nor do I share the hon. Gentleman's assessment of progress on the urgent recommendations that Sir Michael Pitt made in his interim report. On the question of infrastructure, the hon. Gentleman has just heard about the progress that has been made. There are 43 local resilience forums in England, with 38 to be briefed—because the six forums in London will be briefed as one—and 29 of which have been briefed, so there are nine to be done by the end of August. Those nine have not been done because they have said that they want to wait for a revised list of essential infrastructure to be published. Once that happens, they will be briefed.
	There are 4,716 households out of their homes, 58 per cent. of which are in Hull and the East Riding, and 8 per cent. in Tewkesbury. We will continue to work hard to get those people back into their homes, but we should pay tribute to the enormous effort that has resulted in most of the people affected going home. Some 48,000 homes were affected by the flooding and great progress has been made in the past year: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not prepared to acknowledge that.
	The money that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government has promised local authorities has been delivered—up to £88 million—and, as I said, there is more to come in the £31 million that will be allocated by the end of next month.
	The question of connection to sewerage is something that we will look at in the proposed Bill. I gave the hon. Gentleman the answer to his question about the national framework in my statement and I hope that he will welcome the fact that the outline will be published by the end of July and the first draft by the end of this year.
	On the opt-out, the hon. Gentleman clearly did not listen to a word I said, because I told the House that the Environment Agency will now automatically register people whose numbers are publicly available and is in the final stages of sorting out the problem of ex-directory numbers. Of course, people have the right to opt out of a warning in those circumstances, but I am sure that all hon. Members would advise them not to do so.

Eric Martlew: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, but I wish to make two points. First, we should not believe that the privatised utilities will take the action that is necessary. After the 2005 floods in my constituency, of which I was a victim, they should have learned the lessons, but they did not. If they had done so, the problems last summer would have been lessened.
	My second point is the need for more money for more flood defences. The Government have been very generous, and the Secretary of State has said today that more money will be spent, but there will never be enough taxpayers' money, and money will have to come from other sources, whether it is the businesses or the individual households that will benefit from those defences or the insurance companies. I hope that future legislation will ensure that if the Government keep their side of the bargain and put in extra resources, other resources will also be brought in.

Hilary Benn: The responsibility that falls on the utility providers to ensure continuity of supply is clear. My hon. Friend can rest assured that the steps that we are taking will ensure improved protection for that infrastructure. Part of the process of the assessment is to identify where a piece of infrastructure is critical and where a way round it can be found, such as pumping water by a different route if a water treatment works is submerged, as happened with Mythe in the flooding last year.
	My hon. Friend makes a good point about increased investment, and I am glad that he recognises that money that the Government are putting in. However, when it comes to the privatisation of schemes, we may find local communities, businesses and local authorities being prepared to put some money in. The question that we will have to address together is how we can draw on such contributions while also ensuring that we have a fair system, so that it is not only areas that can afford it that get flood defence schemes. The truth is that we all have a shared responsibility.

Steve Webb: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and Sir Michael Pitt and his team for their report. I understand that Sir Michael made special efforts to ensure that the report was so straightforward that even MPs would read it. He has achieved that and deserves credit for doing so. I also salute the work that has been done at local level through the emergency services over the past 12 months, and we should record our appreciation.
	It is true, as the report says, that the 2007 floods were exceptional. Sir Michael describes them as the "most expensive" in the world in 2007, so they were an extraordinary occasion. However, as the Secretary of State said, they will become more common. In that context, is it not outrageous that in one of the world's richest countries there are still 4,700 households out of their homes? Is the Secretary of State convinced that every stop was pulled out to get those people back in their homes, given the trauma of being out of their homes for a year or more? Given the urgency of the situation, why is the Secretary of State talking about draft legislation in the next Session, which would involve actual legislation in 2010 or beyond? Why are we not legislating rapidly? We would all be willing to comment on drafts now, so that we can get on with it. Where is the urgency in this very urgent situation?
	In terms of the funding, I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of £250,000 to plan for a national flood emergency exercise. Can he confirm that one will go ahead, because I would warmly salute that. Householders have some responsibility and a national exercise would educate all of us. Can he confirm that it will go ahead and when?
	On the issue of money, the Secretary of State talked about the budget going up in 2010. That is a long way away, so is he convinced that the Department's budget for flooding is adequate now, given that we are likely to face the same risks over the coming 18 months.
	My final concern, as always, is about DEFRA's weakness, and that of other Departments, on the issue of flooding. The critical issue in this case is housing. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Government's target of 3 million new households by 2026 stands? Is he aware that that would mean more building on the floodplains? In my constituency, in Yate in Chipping Sodbury, the local council has earmarked housing development in flood risk areas because the Government are imposing absurd targets. Will he and the Minister for Housing bang some heads together and get rid of those absurd central targets so that local people can plan sensibly and not be forced to build on floodplains. Sir Michael says that that should be the absolute exception, and he is absolutely right.

Hilary Benn: I echo the hon. Gentleman's praise for the clarity of Sir Michael's report and the practical way in which he went about his task. Today, Sir Michael has presented us and the nation with a guide to why we need to do better in the future, and how we can do so. Today's discussion is part of the process of making more people aware of the steps that they need to take—an awareness that will grow as a result of the coverage that I hope his report will receive today.
	Why are 4,716 households still out of their homes? Principally, the answer is that their homes are still drying out. If anyone has any ideas about how that can be done more quickly, I am sure that insurance companies and those householders will be keen to hear them. Some people might be out of their homes because they have insurance problems—we think that about one in eight of those households did not have any insurance at all—and one lesson that we need to learn is that people cannot afford not to take out insurance.
	Why have I set out such a timetable for the legislation? First, we believe in pre-legislative scrutiny. Secondly, Sir Michael's report has been published only today and we need to think through the consequences of his detailed recommendations, which we have just seen, so that we can update the legislation, some of which goes back to the 1930s. We will have a floods exercise, but it will not be immediate, for the simple reason that we have had quite a lot of flood exercises in the past year: they have been real floods. The purpose of the exercise will be to test the national flood emergency framework, when it is in place, to see whether we have dealt with all the issues that have been identified. The budget is rising from £650 million this year up to £700 million and then £800 million. The Environment Agency will say that it needs time to plan, to gear up and to prepare the new flood schemes. We will, of course, need to do more about such schemes in future.
	The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about housing, but as Sir Michael says in his report, the planning guidance is very clear. The responsibility is on the local authorities and we have made clear what their responsibilities are— [ Interruption. ] It is. In the end, the local councils that give permission for building or refuse it will bear the responsibility. However, the Environment Agency has been given a statutory right to be consulted because, after all, it is the expert on flood risk.

David Blunkett: May I repeat the appreciation of Sir Michael Pitt and of my right hon. Friend's response? I also appreciate the commitment to early legislation. May I reassure my right hon. Friend that in Sheffield, at least, there was no institutional chaos and gold command worked extremely well? May I put two questions to him? First, in the midst of the damage and hurt caused, can we not take heart that in civil society the fact that individuals and communities came together to help and support each other was a signal that our country can go forward with pride in terms of what people are prepared to do for and with each other? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend talk to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health about the need to monitor and support those with emotional and physical needs that arise from the floods, which could have a long-term detrimental effect, particularly on the frail and very old?

Hilary Benn: May I echo what my right hon. Friend had to say about the effectiveness of the emergency response in Sheffield and his comment about the extent to which neighbour has helped neighbour in these terrible and trying times? Out of this terrible adversity has come community spirit—a spirit that has had key responsibility for the progress that has been made.
	On my right hon. Friend's second point, I am happy to give him the assurance he sought. I know that that requirement was discussed at the last floods recovery meeting and I will follow it up. It is important that we provide support, and continue to do so, to individuals who have been severely affected by what happened to them, their families and their homes.

Michael Jack: I congratulate Sir Michael Pitt on a meticulous report. He assured the Select Committee that he would fully cost his recommendations. The Secretary of State has referred to £34.5 million being put to one side by his Department for the implementation of Pitt. Will he tell us what the full cost will be of its implementation? Secondly, in terms of the skills that will be required in hydrology and flood engineering, what steps will be taken to ensure that not only the Environment Agency but local authorities, with their new responsibilities, will be equipped with the right skills to implement Pitt in full?

Hilary Benn: Sir Michael Pitt has not costed all the recommendations in his report—we will need to do that in preparing the detailed action plan that I have promised to present to the House—but he said that most of his recommendations do not involve more money but are about doing things differently.
	On the second, important point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, the Environment Agency, as he might be aware, is already working with the university of the West of England on a scheme to produce the required staff. Some 56 engineers and other staff have graduated, and 52 of them are working for the Environment Agency while others have gone to local authorities. Another 80 are going through the programme. I pay tribute to the way in which the Environment Agency has responded to the need to find more trained people, and I am sure that local authorities will wish to work with the agency and others to ensure that they have the required skills to undertake the responsibilities that they will now be given.

David Drew: I attended a consultation meeting on Monday of the upper Severn catchment flooding management plan—that just slips off the tongue. One issue that came out of the meeting was how that plan sat with what the Environment Agency has in place for the individual river catchment plans, let alone with the water framework directive. Will those plans be pulled together by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? The Select Committee has views on that. Will those plans be pulled together with the Pitt report? It is important that we have joined-up thinking and action.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. One clear lesson from what we have all experienced is that we need to look at how all the bits of the river system fit together so that we can understand where the water will flow if there is flooding. The same issue arises in relation to surface water flooding. The purpose of giving the Environment Agency that overview is precisely so that all the bits can be joined up. As it plans its work on further flood defences, it can then take account of what it has identified to ensure that those defences are put in the right place. This is work in progress, and the purpose of the report and of learning the lessons from it is that we can do a better job in the future.

Laurence Robertson: May I say that people in my constituency will be rather disappointed with a lot of what the Pitt report says on housing? All Sir Michael does is refer back to planning policy statement 25, which was published in December 2006, seven months before the flooding that we are discussing today. Will he also understand that people in Tewkesbury will look on with incredulity at the fact that while we are having this debate the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is considering the draft regional spatial strategy, which proposes building thousands of houses in the area that flooded and close to the power station that almost went down because of that flooding, which would have caused an evacuation of the county? We are rather disappointed with the weakness of that section of the report.

Hilary Benn: We are all thinking of the households—385 at the last count—in his constituency that have been unable to return home. In relation to PPS 25, my understanding as far as Tewkesbury is concerned is that the local authority has applied for growth status. The question is whether, in making decisions about planning applications, we can adequately protect the houses even if they are on a floodplain. After all, this House stands on a floodplain, as do 2 million homes in the country. In London, we are protected by the Thames barrier. Planning authorities have to take into consideration—as the guidance in PPS 25 makes crystal clear—whether adequate protection can be provided when they make decisions about whether to grant planning permission.

Paddy Tipping: Given my right hon. Friend's comments about fairness, he will be aware of the feeling in rural areas that they are disadvantaged when it comes to resource allocation for flood defences. For example, the Environment Agency is putting a multi-million pound flood defence scheme in place in the Nottingham conurbation, but for villages affected downstream, such as Lowdham and other villages in the Trent valley, the resources are more modest. The Select Committee report suggests that there should be discrete funding for rural areas. Will the Secretary of State look closely at that recommendation?

Hilary Benn: I am aware of the argument that my hon. Friend puts forward. The difficulty with allocating a specific sum is that that must be balanced with the Environment Agency's overall prioritisation system for deciding between schemes using the additional money that it has been given. Ultimately, the agency will have to consider a combination of factors, including the number of properties that will be protected and a scheme's economic impact. I am not persuaded that a specific sum for rural areas is the right way forward, but my hon. Friend raises an important point about how protection can be provided under the schemes that meet the criteria and how we can support local communities in doing other things. That is relevant to the question to which I responded a moment ago.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The Secretary of State will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and I have continually raised the problems affecting the Somerset coast and the Somerset levels. Between us, we represent the major part of both areas. After the flooding in the seat represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and elsewhere, the Environment Agency's funding for capital projects in our constituencies was either slowed or stopped. Will the right hon. Gentleman please ensure, following this report, that capital projects for both coastal and inland areas liable to flooding are reinstated? Unless they are, I am afraid that 1,000 years of history shows that it is only a matter of time before we have another flood. The protections that we have now will not be adequate.

Hilary Benn: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that I will look into the specific point that he raises, but he will accept that flood defence spending has doubled in the past 10 years. The Environment Agency now has more funding than it had before, and the increase that it is going to get will enable it to carry out more schemes. In the end, it will always have to prioritise between schemes, but I will look into the point and respond to the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory).

Sally Keeble: My right hon. Friend mentioned reservoir safety, but is he aware that the main reservoir serving Northampton has been infected with cryptosporidium? As of this morning, a quarter of a million people have been left unable to drink their tap water, so will he endorse the advice from the health authorities that to protect their health, people should make sure that they do not drink untreated tap water? Will he also call on shops and supermarkets to make sure that they keep adequate supplies of bottled drinking water, and that they keep the prices down? Finally, will he ensure that his Department learns all the lessons from what has happened? We will not know for up to two weeks exactly what has happened and what needs to be done, but will he ensure that adequate steps are taken to make sure that the reservoir is made completely secure, so that people can rely on having safe drinking water?

Hilary Benn: I am aware of the problem that has been identified at the Pitsford reservoir, which serves large parts of Northampton, and of the advice that has been given to local residents that they should boil tap water before drinking it. I shall of course look into the circumstances of what has happened there but, if a problem arises with drinking tap water even when it has been boiled, the water companies have a responsibility to provide bottled water, as happened during last summer's floods in Gloucester and elsewhere. The companies must provide at least 10 litres of bottled water per person per day, but one of the recommendations in Sir Michael's report is that we should see whether that figure is adequate.

Crispin Blunt: First, I must declare an interest, in that my constituency home is next to a river and is therefore a flood risk. The Secretary of State has talked about the importance of insurance, but when I purchased the house in 2005, I at least had the benefit of knowing that there is an understanding in the insurance industry that companies will continue to underwrite their existing flood risk policies. I wanted to transfer the previous owner's insurance policy to me, which meant that I had to go to a higher level of the company involved. Insurance is essential for everyone who owns a home in a flood-risk area, as a mortgage cannot be secured without that protection for the home's capital value.
	I have not had a chance to read the report, so what does Sir Michael say about insurance? More importantly, what is the Secretary of State's view? I enormously welcome the approach adopted by the insurance companies, but it is very important that the understanding to which I referred earlier remains in place. If it does not, millions of people risk incurring an enormous loss in the capital value of their principal asset.

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point. We are still in discussions with the Association of British Insurers. He will be aware of the statement of principles that has ensured the provision of insurance cover to large parts of the country. Fundamentally, the deal is that the insurance industry will continue to provide that cover, in return for increasing Government investment in flood defence. I announced last summer that that investment will reach £800 million by 2010-11, and that is slightly more than the amount for which the ABI called immediately before last year's floods. We hope to put discussions about any changes to the statement of principles to bed before very long, and we should also acknowledge the incredibly hard work that the insurance companies have done over the past year. They dealt with four years' worth of claims in about two months.

Rob Marris: I welcome the statement and the Pitt report. We need even more funding for inland and coastal flood controls, as those are one of the major elements of adapting to climate change, which is already well under way. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that enough time will be set aside in the Public Bill Committee considering the Climate Change Bill for a thorough discussion of the part of the Bill that deals with adaptation? Will he reconsider and give adaptation equal prominence in the Committee, and make sure that it is not merely relegated to a Sub-Committee?

Hilary Benn: How members of the Committee divide up their time is a matter for them, but there is no doubt that the consideration of the Bill in another place left it stronger in the way that it deals with adaptation. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the tenacity with which he has pushed this issue.

Martin Horwood: I was going to ask about the problem of skyrocketing insurance charges, and I hope that the Secretary of State will deal with that later. However, he deserves a third chance to answer the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). Will he explain precisely how a local council can challenge housing that it believes will exacerbate flooding, when the rigid numbers at national level will not change? They are handed down through regional spatial strategies on a very specific basis that has the developers laughing all the way to the inquiries.

Hilary Benn: I can only say, for the third time, that the planning guidance is crystal clear, and that the responsibility rests on the local authorities—

Martin Horwood: indicated dissent.

Hilary Benn: Local authorities must have regard to the expert advice from the Environment Agency when they consider whether the homes that are built can be adequately protected from flooding.

Mary Creagh: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement and the Pitt report. I thank my right hon. Friend for the extra funding being given to the Environment Agency's flood defences. It means that work on the £9.7 million defence of Ings Beck in the Wakefield area will start early next year—although that is too late for the residents of Rufford street, who were flooded last year.
	I return to the point about the provision of information. The report contains some excellent recommendations on how local authorities can work with communities on prevention, but what about the aftermath of flooding? Two people telephoned my office after the Government handed out compensation in the wake of last year's floods. In the first call, a woman said that a neighbour had told her that she could not get compensation because she was not insured. That was completely wrong. In the other call, a man of Pakistani origin said that he had not realised that such compensation was available. When the Government are giving out resources, is it not incumbent on councils to make sure that everyone who has been flooded gets the information that they need afterwards?

Hilary Benn: First, I am glad to hear about the progress on the flood defence scheme to which my hon. Friend referred. Secondly, I agree completely about the importance of making sure that there is adequate and timely information. One of the many recommendations in Sir Michael's report has to do with how that can happen more effectively in future. One of the most important things that the Government did in the wake of the flooding was to give local authorities a sum of money through the flood recovery grant and then leave it entirely up to them to decide how that money should be used to respond to the needs of their communities and residents. That was exactly the right approach: we did not hem it in with restrictions but said, "There's the money—you go and decide how to use it." That is a really good example of how the Government ought to help local government and communities when things are tough.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Is the Secretary of State aware that if last summer's very heavy rains had fallen slightly further south, the disaster area would have been the Somerset levels? I share the representation of that area with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger). One contributory factor would have been the unresolved tension in the Environment Agency between its drainage responsibilities and its environmental duties. In Somerset, that tension means that the agency does not dredge, clear and maintain the inland rivers properly, even though they are essential for drainage. Will the new strategic authority resolve that difficulty in favour of giving priority to land drainage? In that context, will he ensure that the agency works better with the existing local drainage boards, which is where much of the practical expertise lies?

Hilary Benn: The right hon. Gentleman is making really important points, particularly his last one. Part of what I have said today is indeed about getting together all those who have responsibility, as Sir Michael says, to sort out who is going to do what.
	On the right hon. Gentleman's question about drainage and clearing, the truth is not always as simple and clear-cut as some may argue. If we speed up the flow of water in one place, we may just make it arrive faster somewhere else and add to the problem downstream. That brings me back to the point that I made in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping). We have to consider the totality of the impact and ensure that we are doing the right thing to minimise the risk of flooding. It is very important that the Environment Agency works with local communities to explain the process by which it reaches decisions on that, so that at least there is understanding on all sides of what we are trying to achieve by working together.

Shona McIsaac: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments today and his promise that legislation will be introduced to bring into force many of the report's recommendations. However, I must say that I find it unacceptable that a year on, people are still living in temporary accommodation. That is not just caused by the need to allow houses to dry out. In many cases it is to do with loss adjusters and insurance firms. What can be done to speed up that process, and what will be done to ensure that drains, ditches and dykes are kept clear, to minimise the impact of floods, particularly in rural areas?

Hilary Benn: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the families who are still out of their homes. As she rightly identifies, the bulk of the problems are to do with insurance. It is notable that of the 4,716 households affected, I think only 173 were families in local authority or registered social landlord accommodation. That tells a story about where the difficulties lie. It is also worth remembering that 18 months after the terrible floods in Carlisle, one in 10 households were still out of their home. We need to acknowledge that it takes time for homes to be ready.
	On my hon. Friend's second point, as I said to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) a moment ago, it is important that we get the balance right and that everyone who has responsibility works together.

Graham Stuart: I have two questions about urgent matters. First, given that hundreds of my constituents and more than 2,000 people in Hull and the east riding are still not back in their homes, will the Secretary of State visit Hull and the east riding? Today, the  Hull Daily Mail and the  East Riding Mail launched their "Back Home" campaign, and his visit would be appreciated locally.
	Secondly, I wish to ask about flood rescue. Pitt suggests in his recommendation 39 that
	"The Government should urgently put in place a fully funded national capability for flood rescue, with Fire and Rescue Authorities playing a leading role, underpinned, as necessary, by a statutory duty."
	Can the Secretary of State assure the House that if this has not already happened—my perception is that it has not—he will ensure urgently that fire and rescue services hold the proper safety equipment in case such a disaster happens again?

Hilary Benn: I would be happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation. We will just need to sort out a date. On his second point, he will be aware that some fire and rescue services already have flood rescue capability and have trained their personnel, even in the absence of a statutory duty, and others do not. As I saw for myself during the floods last summer, an effective system of mutual aid is in place so that resources, boats and trained staff can be provided where they are needed. We will consider carefully Sir Michael's recommendations on the matter, and our response will be included in the plan that I have promised the House.

Jon Trickett: Many of the communities in my area that were flooded last year will welcome the Secretary of State's commitments today. Does he agree that if only the agencies would take care of their own responsibilities, we could obviate some of the risk even now? In that regard, will he remind local authorities that they ought regularly to clean gully grates to allow the land drains to drain away? Many areas in my constituency were flooded simply because the grates were silted up. More particularly, will my right hon. Friend get to the bottom of why Hague Hall beck, in South Elmsall in my constituency, is still not being cleared of rubbish and is badly silted up—or at least ensure that someone else gets to the bottom of it? That would bring great security and reduce the anxiety of people like Mrs. McCusker, who lives there.

Hilary Benn: I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has already talked to the Environment Agency about Hague Hall beck, but since my hon. Friend has mentioned it, I shall follow that up. I understand that one of the pilot surface water drainage projects is in my hon. Friend's area, and we have been funding it precisely so that we can understand better what needs to be done to ensure that local authorities fulfil the new responsibilities that I shall be giving them. In the end, it is about bringing together all those who are responsible for how water drains away, so that there is clarity about who is looking after what, and if one organisation is clearing in one place, the next organisation in the line is clearing in another.

Paul Holmes: May I take the Secretary of State back to the comments about long-term investment in flood defence? In my constituency in Chesterfield, three rivers flooded last summer—the Rother, the Hipper and the Whitting. The Rother and the Hipper flooded about 500 houses. Plans for flood defences for those two rivers have gone ahead very quickly in the past year, but the Environment Agency has told public meetings in Chesterfield that even when the extra money for flood defences comes along in three years' time, Chesterfield will be competing with places such as Sheffield and Hull. Can the Secretary of State say how long my constituents should wait—three years, six years, nine years?

Hilary Benn: I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer that I am sure he would like to hear. I am glad to hear that two of those schemes are going ahead. As I indicated in answer to an earlier question, there is more money, but in the end the Environment Agency has to prioritise from among a lot of competing schemes across the country. It is right that it should decide which schemes will go ahead. My job is to give it the money to help it to do that.

Clive Betts: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to give local authorities responsibility for surface water management plans. When localised flooding hit my constituents in Beighton last year, they were affected not only by surface water but by culverts overflowing and back-flowing, by a river overflowing and by a manhole cover blowing off a sewer and sending sewage into their homes. There has been some progress since, through the various agencies working together, but there are still some issues of disagreement about what to do. I wonder whether local authorities should be given a slightly wider remit to pull together all the various utilities and organisations, to ensure that we get a comprehensive approach to trying to prevent such events in future.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. That is exactly what is required, and it is what the proposals that we will put in place will do, so that local authorities can undertake that task.

Julia Goldsworthy: The Secretary of State rightly praised the joint working of local emergency services in their response to the floods last year. Does he share my concern that that joint working could be undermined in future by the regionalisation of some emergency response services such as fire control centres?

Hilary Benn: No, I do not accept the concern that the hon. Lady expresses. In the end, those decisions have to be taken on the basis of what will be most effective in enabling the emergency services to do their job. All I can say from my personal experience last summer is that the way in which the emergency services worked together, giving mutual aid and sending pumps across the country, shows that there is an effective system in place. I am quite confident that no changes will be made that would affect or impair the emergency services' ability to continue to do an outstanding job of helping people when there is trouble.

Angela Smith: I have 13 reservoirs in my constituency, so I very much welcome the investment in reservoir safety and the forthcoming legislation. Although it is of course necessary to invest in hard flood defences, does my right hon. Friend not agree with Natural England that it is also necessary to invest in the capacity of our upland catchment areas to manage water effectively in the first place, to reduce the incidence of water surging downstream and damaging cities such as Sheffield?

Hilary Benn: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. If upland peat bogs stay wet and do not get drained, they are better able to absorb water, and it does not flow as quickly downstream and flood many hon. Members' constituencies. This is a good example of thinking in the round about what we do with water and how we make space for it, and Sir Michael's report will help us to do that.

Vehicle Safety (Loads)

Janet Anderson: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a mandatory code of practice on safety of vehicle loads; and for connected purposes.
	On 1 November 2006, Valerie Taylor, a 63-year-old retired lecturer from my constituency, tragically lost her life in a road traffic accident that could have been entirely avoided. While she was driving from Rossendale to Liverpool to take her partner to hospital, an articulated lorry carrying nearly 40 tonnes of scrap metal overturned on a public highway at the Rocket Island roundabout and landed on Valerie's car. The first police officer on the scene, Sergeant Frank Rennison, described the scene as "utter carnage". Valerie Taylor died instantly as a result of the vehicle crushing her car.
	One of the main reasons the lorry overturned, killing Valerie, was the irresponsible way in which scrap metal had been loaded on to the vehicle. There is a code of practice on the safety of loads on vehicles, but it is not mandatory so it is often ignored. If legislation regarding the loading, carrying and transport of scrap metal was tighter, the irresponsible loading of lorries might stop, and tragic accidents such as that which took the life of Valerie Taylor could be prevented.
	The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), who is now on the Government Front Bench, said in a recent written answer:
	"While the Code is not a legal document and there are no plans to make it mandatory, it can be used as an example of good practice to support a prosecution for non compliance with regulations."—[ Official Report, 26 February 2008; Vol. 472, c. 1351W.]
	If tragic accidents such as that which claimed the life of Valerie Taylor are to be avoided in the future, surely it is essential that we have a mandatory code of practice on the safety of loads on vehicles. The Bill would put such a code in place to regulate and change the way in which scrap metal and other items are loaded on to wagons and carried on our public highways.
	The order in which materials are loaded on to heavy goods vehicles is particularly important for the safety of the loads. I understand that Department for Transport guidelines state that scrap metal cars and comparably large objects should be loaded at the bottom of the container, with smaller bales on top of them. Those guidelines are often ignored. For instance, in the accident that took the life of Valerie Taylor, the load of the heavy goods vehicle that overturned was top-heavy. The lorry was carrying a total load of almost 40 tonnes. As part of that load, nearly 13 tonnes of scrap cars were loaded on top of 8.4 tonnes of compacted scrap metal bales.
	When European Metal Recycling Ltd, the company that owned the scrap metal, gave evidence in the court hearing following the accident, it admitted that three lorries had overturned in three months. It claimed that it had now changed its policy on the loading of scrap metal, but we still see lorries on our motorways today with crushed cars at the top of their loads. It is claimed that the cars are used as a cover to stop metal from flying off, but that must render the loads top-heavy and unstable. The facts speak for themselves.
	The Bill would make it mandatory to load heavier materials at the bottom of a container and lighter materials at the top. It would render the top-heavy loading of heavy goods vehicles illegal, which should prevent such tragic accidents. Almost all of us drive, and the thought that there are no mandatory regulations covering such things should concern us all. The legislative steps proposed in the Bill are necessary to create a much safer environment for all road users. Sadly, we cannot bring Valerie Taylor back to life. However, it would be a fitting tribute to her memory if we were to take this important step to try to ensure that similar tragedies do not, and cannot, occur in the future.
	I pay tribute to my late hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich who, as Chair of the Transport Committee, took a keen interest in this issue and took the trouble to discuss it with my constituents. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), in whose constituency the accident occurred, who is now Chair of that Select Committee. My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope), has also been very supportive.
	Valerie Taylor's niece Pamela Woods and Valerie's friend Pat Hoare have been relentless in their efforts to highlight this problem, so much so that they have persuaded the traffic commissioner in the north-west to conduct an investigation in her role that gives her statutory responsibility for the regulation of commercial goods and passenger vehicles. We await the outcome of her investigation with interest. I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Janet Anderson, Norman Baker, Mr. John Heppell, Mr. Greg Pope, Jim Dowd, Kali Mountford, Andrew Miller, Mr. George Howarth, Ian Stewart and Mrs. Louise Ellman.

Vehicle Safety (Loads)

Janet Anderson accordingly presented a Bill to establish a mandatory code of practice on safety of vehicle loads; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 October, and to be printed [Bill 126].

Planning Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the Order of 2nd June 2008 (Planning Bill (Programme) (No. 2)) be varied as follows—
	1. In the Table in paragraph 4 of the Order, for the entry relating to the second day of the proceedings on consideration there shall be substituted—
	
		
			  Second day 
			  Proceedings  Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 New Clauses, and amendments to Clauses, relating to functions of the Infrastructure Planning Commission or the Secretary of State in relation to applications for orders granting development consent. 5.00 p.m. 
			 New Clauses, and amendments to Clauses, relating to Chapter 2 of Part 9, New Clauses, and amendments to Clauses, relating to Part 11, and remaining proceedings on consideration. 7.00 p.m. 
		
	
	2. In paragraph 5 of the Order, for 'the moment of interruption' substitute '8.00 p.m.'. —[Mr. Michael Foster.]

Jacqui Lait: I congratulate the whole team from the Department for Communities and Local Government on being in the Chamber, which shows how important the programme motion is. What they have done to those of us who wish to discuss in detail the Bill and its many important amendments is a scandal and abuse of process.
	My hon. Friends will remember that we were against the previous programme motion, but I was not going to object when a simple timing change was proposed to reflect the movement of our second day on Report to a Wednesday. However, at 9 o'clock this morning—perhaps it was entirely my fault that I did not pick this up late last night—I received an indication that there was to be a change to both the timings and, more important, the order of discussion.
	I was tempted to argue a couple of weeks ago that there was little common sense in the order of consideration originally proposed by Ministers because the Bill starts by dealing with the infrastructure planning commission. I welcome the fact that we are starting today by dealing with the commission. When I noticed that we were theoretically to have from 12.40 pm to 5 pm to discuss that controversial matter, I was delighted. Then, however, we discovered that there would be two statements today. Although those affected last year by the summer flooding and the loss of child benefit records have my full and total sympathy, I cannot believe that both statements needed to be made on a day when we are discussing one of the most undemocratic Bills to come before the House of Commons. Bringing forward statements when a Government are under pressure is a well-known technique for burying bad news. Some of that pressure might have reduced, but I am glad that there are still some Members of great principle. We hope that that principle will be debated fully in the short time left to us.
	To give time to our discussion of the IPC, all other issues have been squashed into less than two hours. During that time, we will debate the community infrastructure levy, which dramatically changes the way in which developments are funded and conducted; the transfer from the semi-democratic regional assemblies to the totally undemocratic regional development agencies; and local member review bodies. We will consider issues affecting Wales and Scotland. We will also be debating the wide variety of issues raised by other hon. Members in Committee, and I am sure that they will also wish to express their outrage at this change in the programme motion. Obviously, I do not wish to take up too much time.

Paul Beresford: May I add my concerns to those of my hon. Friend? As I said on Second Reading, this is a skeletal Bill, and one with osteoporosis. There are so many questions, yet so few answers. I have tried to find the answers throughout the Committee stage, but without success.

Jacqui Lait: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are questions that we have been trying to pursue in Committee and on the first day of Report. We hoped that we would at least have a reasonable amount of time today to skim over some of the issues that remain unresolved. It is a sad reflection that the Government have to rely on the House of Lords to do the job that the Commons should be doing. Perhaps this is one last mew of protest about the abuse of the timetabling system, which calls into question whether the programming of Bills is the most effective way for the House of Commons to carry out the job of scrutiny that we are sent here to do by our electors. The programme motion has changed fundamentally, and the process has now been abused by time being taken up by two statements that could have been made on any other day. Serious issues will therefore have to be crammed into a very short space of time.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend not think that this timetable amounts almost to an abuse of the House's time? When it suits the Government to do so, they can produce a timetable that is protected against Government statements, over which the House has no control. This timetable does not protect the House in any way against Government statements, which can take up an inordinate amount of time and leave very little time for debate.

Jacqui Lait: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He has most eloquently made the point that I am hoping to convey. Having brought in this form of timetabling, the Government are now abusing it and cannot control it. It is an indication of how they have lost control of the business programme that the next Queen's Speech will be a month later than usual. This Bill is just one indication of why they cannot get their business through the House. It is an appalling, undemocratic Bill and, to get it through, they are abusing the processes of the House.

Frank Field: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jacqui Lait: I do not want another interruption to my peroration—the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that I was coming to an end. I will invite my hon. Friends to vote against the programme motion.

Daniel Rogerson: The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) and I disagreed on some aspects of the Bill in Committee and on Report, but I agree with her that, having already discussed the problems relating to the programming of the Bill, we now find ourselves in the unusual position of having the timetable messed around with again. The maximum opportunity seems to have been taken to wrong-foot hon. Members who have been following the Bill closely and who might wish to know at what point today the various issues will be dealt with.
	Time has been set aside to discuss important, controversial issues relating to the first group of amendments and the infrastructure planning commission, and I echo what the hon. Lady has said about the importance of having enough time for hon. Members on both sides of the House fully to air those issues. I suspect that, as in our previous discussions, there will not be unanimity on either side of the House. It is ridiculous that we will then have just a couple of hours in which to debate five further groups of amendments. That does not do justice to the range of topics that we are being asked to consider, particularly those that appear under the heading of "Existing planning regimes". A diverse set of issues has been raised, and I know that hon. Members—particularly Back-Bench Members—want to raise some very valuable points. However, it will be difficult for the House to give those issues the time that they clearly deserve. I therefore share the hon. Lady's concerns about how the programme motion has been pushed forward today.
	I am a relatively new Member of the House, but I understand from older hands that things were not always done in this way, and that there used to be a great deal more time in which to consider matters such as these. I am used to the concept of programme motions, but, even in the three years that I have been here, I do not think that I have seen an example such as this, in which two quite restricting stabs have been made at ensuring that we do not have enough time to consider all the issues at hand. I very much regret the fact that this programme motion has been put before us today.

Elfyn Llwyd: Having spent several days discussing these important issues in Committee, I am also disappointed that we have come to this point. I say that more in sorrow than in anger. I do not normally take part in debates about programming, because they can sometimes end up producing a load of synthetic anger. I remember the 1992 Parliament, when Labour Members were on this side of the House. Some of them were close to tears whenever anything was timetabled, on the rare occasions when that happened. I heard many impassioned, emotional speeches about the abuse of Parliament at that time. However, it is now routine for Parliament to be abused in that way, and that calls into question the way in which we make laws.
	I was encouraged to hear Ministers saying, "We will take this away for consideration", because I thought that it might indicate some movement on important matters. But no, it was to buy off some rebels, as the Government saw them. Whatever the amendments are, we will not have time to go through them in detail today, but let us hope that we can at least touch on them. I have no doubt that they are fundamentally important.
	This is one of the most important Bills in this Session. Planning impinges on all of us. Everyone gets exercised about planning in their locality, but the Bill will apparently take the local voice out of the system and ensure that an unelected, unaccountable quango will make the decisions instead—albeit, following the latest review, with a Minister riding alongside on his horse.
	I am desperately unhappy about the Bill. Some of us who have been here for a while have seen changes to planning law, and I accept that changes are necessary because planning law evolves. If it did not evolve, we would be failing the people out there. However, to impose this kind of regime after such a truncated debate, and to expect us to sit by and allow the law to go through with such scant scrutiny, is an absolute disgrace. I shall certainly join the official Opposition and others in opposing the programme motion.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am pleased to be able to follow someone whom I would like to call my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). He and I have served on many Committees over many years, and his words are always wise and should be respected. I hope that the Government will have listened carefully to what he has said, because he spent many hours serving loyally on the Bill's Committee, as did my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. However, the Bill that they were discussing in Committee is not the Bill that we are discussing today. It is a completely new Bill. I have no quarrel with the democratic process; if enough people in the House are against a particular proposal, the Government should table amendments. However, if the Opposition had come forward with the amendments that the Government have tabled today, they would have been accused of tabling wrecking amendments, so much would they have amended the Bill's original structure.
	We have only two and three quarter hours in which to discuss more than 110 amendments to the first part of the Bill, which will result in the complete alteration of the functions and structure of the infrastructure planning commission. That is a major part of the Bill. The whole principle behind the Bill revolves around how the new commission will operate. The Committee had many sittings in which to discuss this subject, and to give us only two and three quarter hours seems to me to be an abuse of the House's time.
	We shall then come to the rest of the Bill, which is huge, and has many important implications. Not many people have commented on that. The local review boards will be covered, as will the way in which appeals on minor planning applications will be treated. There will be no external appeal in future; the process will be covered by the local review boards. At the very least, we need time to discuss that matter. However, there are 104 amendments relating to the second part of our discussions today, and they will be discussed in less than two hours by the time that the preceding vote has taken place, which is a real abuse of the House's time.
	When it suits the Government, they produce a timetable that protects the time from Government statements, but they have not done that today. They did it for the 42-day detention debate, and this is just as important a matter taken in the round, but they have not protected the time. If they were really generous, they would protect the time for this debate, but they have not done that, which will restrict the time we have available.
	The Government are treating the House in a cavalier manner. If they were to allow the House proper time for discussion, they might end up with better legislation on the statute book. As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy has said—I should call him my hon. Friend—it is wrong to leave the detailed scrutiny of a complicated Bill such as this solely to the other place. No doubt when amendments come back from the other place, we will have even less time to consider them.
	I hope that the Government will think carefully about this matter, which smacks of their not knowing what they are doing. They are rushing around talking to all sorts of people, but they have no central idea on how to amend the planning system. Nobody argues that the planning system does not need amending—of course it does. Taking seven years to get the planning application for terminal 5 through was too long, and that situation hampers the economic development of this country, but I say in all sincerity to the Government that this is not the way to do it.

Frank Field: I rise with the aim of puncturing the cant that we have been listening to since the start of the debate. I admit that I was never reduced to tears on the Opposition Benches because of timetabling. I longed for timetabling in those miserable years when we found it so difficult to win elections.
	I want to make two points. First, the official Opposition want to have it both ways. We have been told that the Bill is being railroaded through the House of Commons, yet at the same time the official Opposition maintain that the Government have lost their legislative programme. It may be possible to make one of those points, but it is rather difficult to make both of them.
	Secondly, I reject the old-fashioned, mid-19th-century view of how the House of Commons should behave. I was pleased to hear that one of the charges against the Government is that they have been busy buying off opposition on the Government Benches. I suggest that that is the House of Commons working effectively, and the more effective we make the House of Commons, the better.

Peter Bone: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I disagree with his first point but agree with his second. It is good to see the House of Commons working democratically when a Bill is delayed and revisions are made; it is bad when time is restricted for debate—in my view, it is because the Whips are concerned and want the least amount of time to show divisions in the governing party.

Frank Field: Does the hon. Gentleman think that if we had 50 hours, the Commons would make a different decision?

Peter Bone: I do not have such powers. If we had 50 hours of debate, the Bill would be better, because all the points would be scrutinised.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is exaggerating to make his point. Fifty hours of debate would, of course, be ridiculous, but if we merely had the time taken by the two statements this afternoon, it would make a huge difference.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because I was about to make that point. Why do the Government not have protected time for controversial issues and debates? Hon. Members have mentioned the limited time for discussion, but this situation also puts pressure on statements. When people want to get on to the next business, it is difficult to get every hon. Member in on an important statement. The more the Government timetable and reduce the amount of debate, the lower the Labour party goes in the polls.

Robert Wilson: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone). I oppose the programme motion for one simple reason—this evening, incredibly important issues will either not be debated or be debated very briefly because of insufficient time, which was caused by the two statements this afternoon.
	I want to raise some important issues in the discussion on the group of amendments relating to the community infrastructure levy. For example, Thames Valley police authority has approached me to press the Government on how the community infrastructure levy will increase police funding in the Thames valley area. At the moment, the Bill does not tell us how the police and emergency services will be funded in the future, when there will be great pressure on budgets due to growth in Reading and the Thames valley. The programme motion appears to have been designed to restrict or even stop debate on crucial local issues.

John Healey: The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) made many of the same points this afternoon that she made three weeks ago, when we debated the programme motion for the first day on Report, as did the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). They complained about the time for debate, but their complaints have eaten into the time available for that debate.
	Those hon. Members also complained about the delay on Report, but at the same time they want Ministers to deal with hon. Members' concerns. From the outset—the White Paper onwards—we have done just that. We have listened hard at every stage to the case made by hon. Members from all parties on the Bill. We have also discussed in detail concerns expressed by local government, industry and environmental lobby groups. Where there is a strong case for change, we have been prepared to strengthen the Bill accordingly, which is what we are doing again today.
	We scheduled the second day on Report for today rather than for two weeks ago because I wanted the important issues that we are debating this afternoon to be dealt with in this House, not in the other place, and to be decided by MPs, not peers. My reasons for framing and moving the programme motion are straightforward. I want to make sure that the House has the most time on the matters that concern hon. Members most, which is why the time available for the important first group of amendments runs until 5 o'clock, which has become even more important given the two important statements this afternoon.

Peter Bone: The Minister's argument does not ring true. If he really wanted to protect the time for the first debate, he would have set a number of hours, not a time. Why did he not set a protected number of hours?

John Healey: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look at the programme motion. We have moved back the end of tonight's proceedings by a full hour to take account of the fact that we had two statements this afternoon. That is an unusual step for the Government to take, but we took it because the time available for debate in this House this afternoon is important.
	A number of amendments have been tabled for this afternoon's debate, but as I told the House when we debated the programme motion on the first day on Report, we are dealing with complex legislation that has been closely scrutinised at every stage—there were four evidence sittings and 14 scrutiny sittings in Public Bill Committee. As I told the House on 2 June, we are not making major changes to the scope or nature of the Bill through the amendments this afternoon. We are refining the Bill, often in light of the points made to us in Committee.

Elfyn Llwyd: I compliment the Minister on how the Public Bill Committee was conducted; he genuinely engaged in discussion. However, given the time constraints today, I bet that the Government could not possibly explain their own amendments—let alone anything else.

John Healey: We have had these arguments about time constraints at each stage of the Bill. Sad to say, it is what we always hear from the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman was on the Committee, and he will remember that the Committee sittings finished early. He was here on the first day of Report, and he will remember that those proceedings also finished early. At each stage we have given not only thorough scrutiny to the provisions of this important Bill, but enough time for that to be done.

Daniel Rogerson: rose—

Robert Wilson: rose—

John Healey: No, I will finish on this point. If we get on with debating the content of the Bill rather than the procedures for doing so, we will be able this afternoon to give the proper scrutiny that the House needs to give to these important provisions. That is what my motion is designed to do, and I commend it to the House.

Question put:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 156.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day

Planning Bill

As amended in the Public Bill Committee, further considered.

New Clause 11
	 — 
	Intervention: defence and national security

'Section 103 applies by virtue of this section if—
	(a) an application is made for an order granting development consent,
	(b) the Commission has accepted the application and has received a certificate under section 55(2) in relation to the application, and
	(c) the Secretary of State is satisfied that intervention by the Secretary of State would be in the interests of defence or national security.'.— [Hazel Blears.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Hazel Blears: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 12— Effect of intervention.
	Government new clause 13— Development for which development consent may be granted.
	New clause 7— Independent third party oversight of consultation—
	'(1) The provisions of this section apply to Chapter 2 of Part 5 of this Act.
	(2) The Commission shall appoint for each applicant an independent third party ("the third party") to oversee the pre-application procedure.
	(3) The third party shall advise the applicant as to the appropriate form of consultation to be set out in the applicant's statement under section 45(1) of this Act.
	(4) The applicant shall have regard to advice given by the third party under subsection (3).
	(5) The third party may undertake to carry out any such consultation under section 45(7) of this Act, on behalf of the applicant, as the third party considers appropriate.
	(6) The Secretary of State shall agree arrangements to meet the cost of consultation undertaken by the third party under subsection (5).
	(7) The Commission may make arrangements on behalf of the Secretary of State under subsection (6).
	(8) Costs agreed under subsection (6) may be met by—
	(a) the applicant,
	(b) the Commission, or
	(c) the Secretary of State.
	(9) Subsection (7) shall not apply where costs are to be met by the Secretary of State under subsection (8)(c), except where the Secretary of State has indicated otherwise.'.
	New clause 39— Legal challenges relating to nuisance etc.—
	'No proceedings, whether criminal or civil, in nuisance and no civil proceedings in respect of the escape of things from land, other than proceedings for breach of statutory duty, may be brought in relation to development, works or operations authorised by an order granting development consent.'.
	New clause 40— Notice of persons interested in land to which compulsory acquisition request relates—
	'(1) This section applies where—
	(a) the Commission has accepted an application for an order granting development consent, and
	(b) the application includes a request for an order granting development consent to authorise compulsory acquisition of land or of an interest in or right over land (a "compulsory acquisition request").
	(2) The applicant must give to the Commission a notice specifying the names, and such other information as may be prescribed, of each affected person.
	(3) Notice under subsection (2) must be given in such form and manner as may be prescribed.
	(4) A person is an "affected person" for the purposes of this section if the applicant, after making diligent inquiry, knows that the person is interested in the land to which the compulsory acquisition request relates or any part of that land.'.
	New clause 41— Compulsory acquisition hearings—
	'(1) This section applies where the application includes a request for an order granting development consent to authorise compulsory acquisition of land or of an interest in or right over land (a "compulsory acquisition request").
	(2) The Examining authority must fix, and cause each affected person to be informed of, the deadline by which an affected person must notify the Commission that the person wishes a compulsory acquisition hearing to be held.
	(3) If the Commission receives notification from at least one affected person before the deadline, the Examining authority must cause a compulsory acquisition hearing to be held.
	(4) At a compulsory acquisition hearing, the following are entitled (subject to the Examining authority's powers of control over the conduct of the hearing) to make oral representations about the compulsory acquisition request—
	(a) the applicant;
	(b) each affected person.
	(5) A person is an "affected person" for the purposes of this section if the person's name has been given to the Commission in a notice under section [Notice of persons interested in land to which compulsory acquisition request relates].'.
	New clause 42— Local impact reports—
	'(1) Subsection (2) applies where the Commission—
	(a) has accepted an application for an order granting development consent, and
	(b) has received—
	(i) a certificate under section 55(2) in relation to the application, and
	(ii) where section [Notice of persons interested in land to which compulsory acquisition request relates] applies, a notice under that section in relation to the application.
	(2) The Commission must give notice in writing to each of the following, inviting them to submit a local impact report to it—
	(a) each authority which, in relation to the application, is a relevant local authority within the meaning given by section 95(5), and
	(b) the Greater London Authority if the land to which the application relates, or any part of it, is in Greater London.
	(3) A "local impact report" is a report in writing giving details of the likely impact of the proposed development in the authority's area (or any part of that area).
	(4) "The proposed development" is the development for which the application seeks development consent.
	(5) A notice under subsection (2) must specify the deadline for receipt by the Commission of the local impact report.
	(6) The deadline is the deadline for completion of the examination of the application by a Panel or a single Commissioner (see section).'.
	Amendment No. 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, at end insert
	'for the purpose of advising the Secretary of State on applications for orders granting development consent'.
	Amendment No. 68, in page 1, line 7, at end insert—
	'(2A) Decisions taken by the Commission as part of any function conferred on it shall be subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State.'.
	Amendment No. 339, in page 1, line 7, at end insert—
	'(2A) Decisions taken by the Commission as part of any function conferred on it shall be subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State.
	(2B) The Secretary of State must decide whether or not to confirm any such decision by the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the day on which the Secretary of State received the decision.'.
	Amendment No. 60, in clause 35, page 21, line 41, leave out 'Commission' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
	Amendment No. 61, in clause 36, page 22, line 27, leave out 'Commission' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
	Amendment No. 62, in page 22, line 28, leave out 'its' and insert 'the'.
	Amendment No. 55, in clause 40, page 23, line 30, after 'application', insert
	'and seek to resolve any issues which they may raise'.
	Amendment No. 326, in page 23, line 32, at end insert—
	'(ba) statutory environment agencies'.
	Amendment No. 317, in clause 42, page 24, line 34, after 'means', insert
	'a claim by a person who after diligent enquiry is found to have'.
	Amendment No. 318, in page 24, line 37, at end insert 'or'.
	Amendment No. 319, in page 24, line 40, leave out from 'works)' to end of line 41.
	Amendment No. 310, in clause 52, page 30, line 12, at end insert
	'has accepted no more than 40 applications in the previous twelve months and'.
	Amendment No. 327, in page 30, line 37, leave out 'notify the applicant of the acceptance' and insert—
	'(a) notify the applicant of the acceptance,
	(b) commission and fund an assessment by the relevant local planning authority, or authorities, of—
	(i) whether the development proposed in the application is in accordance with the principles set out in the authority's (or, as the case may be, authorities') local development documents as defined in section 17 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004;
	(ii) the likely impact of the application on residents within the local authority area;
	(iii) whether the application takes reasonable consideration of persons residing in the relevant local planning authority area;
	(iv) any other matter which the relevant planning authority considers appropriate.
	(6A) A local planning authority is relevant under subsection (6) if any of the locations in the application is in the authority's area.'.
	Amendment No. 322, in clause 54, page 32, line 8, after 'means', insert
	'a claim by a person, who after diligent enquiry is found to have'.
	Amendment No. 320, in page 32, line 11, at end insert 'or'.
	Amendment No. 321, in page 32, line 14, leave out from 'works) to end of line 15.
	Amendment No. 340, in clause 56, page 33, line 3, after 'received', insert '(i)'.
	Amendment No. 341, in page 33, line 4, after 'application', insert ', and
	(ii) where section [Notice of persons interested in land to which compulsory acquisition request relates] applies, a notice under that section in relation to the application.'.
	Amendment No. 6, in clause 69, page 38, line 21, leave out subsection (1).
	Amendment No. 7, in page 38, line 25, leave out 'In any other case,'.
	Amendment No. 63, in clause 78, page 41, line 31, leave out from 'made' to end of line 34 and insert 'to the Secretary of State'.
	Amendment No. 8, in page 41, leave out lines 32 and 33.
	Amendment No. 9, in page 41, line 34, leave out ', in any other case'.
	Amendment No. 10, in page 42, line 2, leave out Clause 79.
	Amendment No. 11, in page 42, line 8, leave out Clause 80.
	Amendment No. 66, in clause 85, page 44, line 5, at end insert
	', subject to the right of interested parties to make oral representations.'.
	Amendment No. 342, in page 44, line 7, after '86', insert ', [Compulsory acquisition hearings]'.
	Amendment No. 343, in clause 88, page 45, line 1, after '86(2)', insert—
	'(aa) to a compulsory acquisition hearing (see section [Compulsory acquisition hearings]),'.
	Amendment No. 344, in page 45, line 10, leave out 'an interested party' and insert 'another person'.
	Amendment No. 345, in page 45, line 15, after '86(3)', insert ', [Compulsory acquisition hearings](4)'.
	Amendment No. 346, in page 45, line 16, leave out 'an interested party' and insert 'another person'.
	Amendment No. 347, in page 45, line 23, after '86(3)', insert ', [Compulsory acquisition hearings](4)'.
	Amendment No. 348, in page 45, line 29, leave out 'an interested party' and insert 'another person'.
	Amendment No. 350, in page 45, line 32, leave out 'an interested party' and insert 'a person'.
	Amendment No. 351, in page 45, line 32, leave out 'party's' and insert 'person's'.
	Amendment No. 352, in page 45, line 35, after '86(3)', insert ', [Compulsory acquisition hearings](4)'.
	Amendment No. 353, in clause 89, page 46, line 8, at end insert—
	'(ba) a compulsory acquisition hearing (see section [Compulsory acquisition hearings],'.
	Amendment No. 12, in clause 96, page 49, line 5, leave out from 'consent' to end of line 15.
	Amendment No. 64, in page 49, line 11, leave out from 'consent' to end of line 15 and insert 'means the Secretary of State'.
	Amendment No. 13, in page 49, line 16, leave out Clause 97.
	Amendment No. 349, in clause 97, page 49, line 22, at end insert—
	'(aa) any local impact report (within the meaning given by section [Local impact reports](3)) submitted to the Commission before the deadline specified in a notice under section [Local impact reports](2),'.
	Amendment No. 69, in page 49, line 23, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert—
	'(b) any other national policy which is relevant to the development,
	(c) the development plan,
	(d) the desirability of contributing to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change,
	(e) the proposed measures for limiting the nature or extent of any negative impact of the development, and
	(f) any other material considerations.'.
	Amendment No. 328, in page 49, line 22, at end insert—
	'(ba) all relevant planning policy statements,
	(bb) the views of statutory environment agencies'.
	Amendment No. 292, in page 49, line 25, leave out from 'other' to end of line 40 and insert 'material considerations'.
	Amendment No. 70, in page 49, line 27, leave out from 'with' to end of line 29 and insert—
	'(a) the dual objectives of achieving sustainable development and of avoiding (so far as is reasonably practicable) damage to or deterioration of—
	(i) society, including the health and well being of the population;
	(ii) the environment, including biodiversity, living organisms and the ecological systems of which they form part, natural resources and the climate; and
	(iii) the economy; and
	(b) any relevant national policy statement, except to the extent that one or more of the following subsections applies.'.
	Amendment No. 71, in page 50, line 3, at end insert—
	'(9) This subsection applies if the Panel or Council is satisfied that deciding the application in accordance with any national policy statement will or may be inconsistent with achieving one or both of the objectives in subsection (3)(a).
	(10) For the purpose of this section and section 95 "development plan" has the meaning given in section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
	(11) For the purpose of this section the Panel or Council must have regard to advice relating to sustainable development contained in guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State.'.
	Amendment No. 14, in clause 98, page 50, line 5, leave out subsection (1).
	Amendment No. 355, in page 50, line 7, at end insert—
	'(za) any local impact report (within the meaning given by section [Local impact reports](3)) submitted to the Commission before the deadline specified in a notice under section [Local impact reports](2),'.
	Amendment No. 15, in clause 99, page 50, line 14, leave out first 'decision-maker' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
	Amendment No. 31, in page 50, line 14, leave out second 'decision-maker' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
	Amendment No. 16, in clause 100, page 50, line 21, leave out 'decision-maker' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
	Amendment No. 17, in page 50, line 25, leave out from beginning to third 'the' in line 30.
	Government amendments Nos. 103 and 104.
	Amendment No. 18, in page 50, line 33, leave out 'appropriate authority' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
	Amendment No. 19, in page 50, line 35, leave out subsection (4).
	Amendment No. 20, in page 51, line 1, leave out subsection (6).
	Amendment No. 21, in page 51, line 8, leave out 'by the Secretary of State'.
	Amendment No. 32, in clause 101. page 51, line 30, leave out 'the following are suspended'.
	Amendment No. 22, in page 51, line 32, leave out from 'completed' to end of line 34 and insert 'is suspended'.
	Amendment No. 23, in page 51, line 37, leave out Clauses 102 to 104.
	Government amendment No. 105
	Amendment No. 354, in clause 102, page 52, line 2, after '55(2)', insert
	', and (where section [Notice of persons interested in land to which compulsory acquisition request relates] applies, a notice under that section,'.
	Government amendments Nos. 106 to 110.
	Amendment No. 24, in clause 105, page 53, line 26, leave out 'decision-maker' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
	Government amendments Nos. 111 and 112.
	Amendment No. 25, in page 54, line 13, leave out from second 'development' to 'to' in line 14 and insert 'regard shall be had'.
	Amendment No. 26, in clause 106, page 54, line 16, leave out 'decision-maker' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
	Amendment No. 27, in page 54, line 19, leave out 'appropriate authority' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
	Amendment No. 28, in page 54, line 22, leave out 'appropriate authority' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
	Amendment No. 29, in page 54, line 23, leave out 'authority' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
	Amendment No. 30, in page 54, line 24, leave out subsection (4).
	Amendment No. 33, in clause 107, page 54, line 29, leave out subsection (2).
	Amendment No. 34, in page 54, line 31, leave out 'If'.
	Amendment No. 35, in page 54, line 31, leave out from 'order' to 'must'.
	Amendment No. 36, in page 54, line 33, leave out 'appropriate authority' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
	Amendment No. 37, in page 54, line 36, leave out 'appropriate authority' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
	Amendment No. 38, in page 54, line 37, leave out 'authority' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
	Amendment No. 39, in page 54, line 38, leave out subsection (5).
	Amendment No. 40, in page 57, line 29, leave out Clause 110.
	Amendment No. 56, in clause 110, page 58, line 3, at end insert—
	'(5A) An order to which this section applies is subject to special parliamentary procedure.'.
	Amendment No. 41, in clause 112, page 58, line 30, leave out subsection (2).
	Amendment No. 42, in clause 114, page 59, line 18, leave out from beginning to third 'the'.
	Amendment No. 43, in page 59, line 20, leave out paragraph (b).
	Amendment No. 44, in page 59, line 32, leave out from beginning to third 'the'.
	Amendment No. 45, in page 59, line 34, leave out paragraph (b).
	Amendment No. 46, in clause 118, page 61, line 42, leave out from beginning to third 'the'.
	Amendment No. 47, in page 62, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).
	Amendment No. 48, in page 63, line 1, leave out from beginning to third 'the'.
	Amendment No. 49, in page 63, line 3, leave out paragraph (b).
	Amendment No. 65, in clause 122, page 65, line 13, at end insert ', and
	(c) organisations representing public rights of way user groups, as prescribed, have been consulted.'.
	Amendment No. 50, in clause 128, page 66, line 28, leave out 'decision-maker' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
	Amendment No. 51, in page 66, line 30, leave out subsection (3).
	Government amendments Nos. 161 to 164.
	Government new schedule 1— Examination of applications by Secretary of State.

Hazel Blears: I am very conscious of the amount of time that we have to debate the range of amendments to which you refer, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to concentrate largely on the areas that Members are most exercised about. Members are concerned about three main issues: first, the principle of independent decision making, which, as they have said, goes right to the heart of the Bill; secondly, what happens at the examination stage and the public's right to be heard, not only at that stage but under the rest of the Bill—public consultation and the right to be heard is absolutely central—and, thirdly, the impact on the local community of decisions on major national significant infrastructure projects, which is the aspect that Members have expressed most concern to me about. We should make those three areas the principal focus of our debate, and I intend to do that.
	The amendments fall broadly into nine blocks. If Members will bear with me, I propose to deal briefly with the Government amendments, which fall into blocks 1, 2 and 3. The issues at the heart of the Bill are dealt with in blocks 4, 5 and 6, and then we have some Opposition amendments towards the end. If I refer to minor issues, I do not mean to denigrate them, but they may not be at the centre of people's concerns.
	The Government amendments deal broadly with changes to procedure relating to ministerial intervention. Contrary to some of the views that have been expressed, there is provision for ministerial intervention in certain narrowly defined circumstances, one of which relates to national security and defence. A series of Government amendments seek to prescribe a procedure where intervention takes place on the basis of national security or defence issues. They relate primarily to being able to take evidence in a particular way because it might involve sensitive matters, in order to ensure that if there are hearings in private the interests of people who might be affected are protected by special procedures. In many ways, the procedures mirror those that we have in criminal law and civil law where issues of national security are touched on and there is a need to protect the sensitivity of the information.
	That is the broad thrust of that group of amendments, and I hope that they are agreed to. There are provisions for the Attorney-General to appoint people to protect interests—that sort of thing—and they are in the interests of good government.

Graham Stuart: One of the causes of concern is whether the legislation was put together in a hurry, and although we welcome the points that the Secretary of State has just made, how was it possible to introduce legislation without such vital elements already in place? Why was there so little understanding, and why was the legislation not fully thought through?

Hazel Blears: I refute entirely the idea that the legislation was brought forward in a hurry. We had a White Paper and a lengthy period of public consultation. We responded in great detail to that consultation, and as hon. Members would acknowledge, the Bill was significantly different from some of the proposals in the White Paper as a result of our listening and responding to people's concerns. Equally, if we have process issues that can help to refine the procedures in the Bill, it is right to bring them forward. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that these are matters of process, not principle. The issues were already in the Bill; the proposals simply concern how we are going to put it into practice, so I hope that they find favour across the House.
	The second block of amendments also deals with process issues. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 contains provisions that set out that development is deemed to have commenced if developers take certain steps. In the case of major infrastructure projects, it is more difficult to delineate the point at which we trigger the commencement of development. Therefore, we want to introduce a set of criteria that will set out what actions do not trigger the commencement of development, so we can give a bit more certainty in that area. Those issues have been raised many times by developers who are not sure when taking preparatory steps whether they are commencing their planning permission or not. That set of amendments is broadly sensible, and I hope that they are supported across the House.

Denis Murphy: Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that open-cast coal operators will not be allowed to circumvent the current planning system by referring new applications directly to the new planning commission, citing the national interest?

Hazel Blears: I am delighted to give my hon. Friend that assurance. Clause 13 sets out in great detail the areas that are subject to the process of national policy statements, which involves the jurisdiction of the national planning commission, and he will find that open-cast coal mining is not one of the areas set out in the clause. Therefore, it would not fall under the jurisdiction of the Bill. I am delighted to give my hon. Friend and his colleagues that reassurance.

Frank Field: My right hon. Friend is well aware that between the Birkenhead and Wallasey constituencies, Peel Holdings wishes to create over time what is, in effect, a new town. Will she give me an undertaking that that terrific development, which has huge significance for Merseyside, but may not rate as a national event, will be covered by the current planning procedures and not the new ones?

Hazel Blears: I am delighted to give my right hon. Friend that assurance. I have visited the area, and I have gained a little understanding of the exciting vision for the community. That project would not fall under clause 13, which deals with energy, wind, water and waste water—that sort of big infrastructure project. The sort of project he mentioned would be dealt with by the existing system, and I am delighted to give him that reassurance.

Gordon Prentice: What is the position regarding the disposal of radioactive nuclear waste? I understand that we had a paper on that matter a week or two ago, but the Government have not quite made up their mind on it.

Hazel Blears: I understand that that issue is still being considered by the special committee established to deal specifically with it. It is a matter of national importance, and getting those decisions right will be fundamental.

Paul Beresford: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Hazel Blears: I am anxious to get to the meat of this Bill, as I am sure lots of hon. Members are, but I will briefly give way.

Paul Beresford: Clause 13 refers to
	"the construction of a pipe-line".
	If the Secretary of State talked about that a tiny bit, I would be grateful. Some long and important pipelines have gone through my constituency quite easily, but a very short gas pipeline that is about to be dealt with under the procedures goes through several beautiful areas in my constituency. It is a tiny matter in many ways, but it is emotionally important. Would that matter be taken away from the local authority?

Hazel Blears: Clearly, there are issues involving the distribution network for gas and electricity. Some of the pipelines and distribution mechanisms may be small in themselves, but fundamental to a major application. Discussions are ongoing about ensuring that we get the threshold right. This Bill, this structure and this procedure deal with major national projects, but there is also the need for a single consent regime. That is a big prize of this Bill—we do not want decisions to be taken under different regimes when they comprise parts of the same project. If the hon. Gentleman wants further detail on that, I would be delighted to write to him.

Susan Kramer: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Hazel Blears: Goodness me. I shall make this the last intervention on this area.

Susan Kramer: The Secretary of State is being phenomenally generous, and it is much appreciated.
	As the details of the Bill have emerged, a large number of my constituents have become concerned that it is not only the expansion of runways at Heathrow that will be covered by the new procedure, but changes to the pattern of operations and the ending of runway alternation. Will the right hon. Lady give us some clarification on that issue, because it is causing a great deal of disquiet?

Hazel Blears: As I said to the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), the purpose of the Bill is to ensure a single consent regime for major infrastructure projects. We will come to other powers of the independent planning commission when we discuss some of the amendments. We want to ensure that in the field of aviation, for example, there is a clear exposition of national policy in the national policy statement. Individual applications will then be dealt with by the independent planning commission. Clearly, it is a matter of assessing the national need and then looking at the detail of individual applications. If the hon. Lady has concerns on a specific issue, I shall write to her with further details, and I am more than happy to do so.
	The second block of amendments, which I shall mention quickly, deals with where we trigger development, and ensure that the lines concerning such triggering are appropriate. Again, I hope that the amendments will have the support of the House. There is a third block of amendments dealing with cases in which different terms of consent might be granted to the original application. Members have expressed the concern that, if in the process of considering an application, some detail turns out to be slightly different from what was originally intended, there should be a notification procedure to ensure that people are aware of it. That is entirely proper because the whole point of the process is that there is a dialogue. There should be interaction, and the ability to dig into issues to get the right result. It is absolutely appropriate that people should be notified, and, again, I hope that the amendments find favour. Hopefully, those non-controversial amendments will lead us to discussions on amendments that will not find universal consensus.
	Further amendments have been submitted by various Opposition Members. There are amendments on whether the independent planning commission should take into account specific issues when making its decisions. There are a series of such amendments, including amendments Nos. 69, 71, 292 and 328. They would ensure that the IPC considered a list of criteria, including mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, limiting the negative impact of a development, widening the framework, looking at all relevant planning policy statements, the views of statutory environment agencies and material considerations. Those amendments would, in many ways, replicate the current considerations of the current town and country planning system, when the purpose of the Bill is to set up a new system of examining major national infrastructure projects. We are not seeking to replicate the existing system. This is a bold attempt to get a planning system that is fit for the 21st century, which can deal with major applications.
	I say to those who tabled that block of amendments that the framework in which the infrastructure planning commission operates should be set at the national policy statement stage. That is fundamental. To add consideration after consideration—a list of criteria—would constrain the IPC. The framework in which it operates should properly be the subject of a national policy statement. I do not dismiss the amendments, but they are unnecessary.
	Some amendments would make specific bodies, such as the Environment Agency, statutory consultees. The Bill provides for a range of bodies to be statutory consultees—I have no doubt that the Environment Agency will be one, but it is invidious to try to highlight only one body through an amendment. I do not believe that that would help the formulation of the proposed legislation. I am not being rude to those who tabled the amendments—I understand the point that they are trying to pursue—but I hope that I can reassure them that those planning policy considerations will be at the heart of the IPC's framework.
	The next block of amendments in the group almost proposes the necessity for a third party when consultation takes place about various proposals. It includes new clause 7 and amendments Nos. 55, 317 to 322, 326 and 65. They try to provide for mediation of and comment on consultation by a third party to assess whether it has been adequate. Again, I am worried about the proposals because the point of the consultation is that the people engaged in the debate should be responsible for it. For example, the Bill provides for a new right for people to be consulted before a proposal is made. The promoter of the proposal is responsible for ensuring that that consultation is carried out. The local authority has to determine whether it was effective, but to insert provision for a third party to mediate would get us to the point at which local people felt that they had not had a proper say because their views were being translated at second or possibly third hand. I am therefore not attracted to the amendments and ask hon. Members not to support them. They are impractical, unnecessary and inappropriate.
	I am more amenable to the proposal for carrying out a diligent inquiry to assess who might be in a position to claim compensation. I am slightly more attracted to that proposal because it is important for promoters to know the range of people who might find themselves in that position. It would give promoters more certainty. I do not want to place an unreasonable burden on promoters, but I am attracted to ascertaining whether we can find a reasonable formulation of the responsibility so that there is more certainty about those who might be affected.

Paul Beresford: The Secretary of State is kind to give way again. Let us go back half a step. As I understand it, the promoters consult before they submit their planning application. Who reports to the quango on the consultation—the promoter?

Hazel Blears: Yes. The promoter would have a responsibility, but as the hon. Gentleman will realise as I deal with the heart of the Bill and the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), the role of local authorities will be significantly greater in ensuring that the IPC is fully apprised of local people's views and the impact on the community. That is why I feel that my hon. Friend's proposal is constructive and worth while.

John McDonnell: I want to get the matter completely clear, because it will astound several of my constituents. Will BAA undertake the consultation on the development of a third runway at Heathrow and report truthfully and honestly to the IPC? Will the Secretary of State confirm that?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend knows that the promoter will be responsible for undertaking the consultation. That is a new opportunity for the public to be involved, which I hope that he acknowledges. That consultation will also be subject to guidance, which the Department can issue to ensure that it is conducted properly, thoroughly and rigorously and gets to the heart of the issues. Obviously, it will be subject to the IPC being satisfied, and there is also the local authority procedure. That is a pretty comprehensive belt-and-braces approach to ensuring that people have a proper say.

John McDonnell: Will my right hon. Friend just answer the specific question? Will BAA undertake the initial consultation on the third runway at Heathrow?

Hazel Blears: Yes, if it is the promoter of the scheme. Promoters have that responsibility. When I deal with the other issues and the points at which the public can be heard, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the Bill provides much greater public consultation and involvement than the existing system.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Hazel Blears: May I ask hon. Members to wait a moment, because I want to deal with one more technical matter, after which we can get into public involvement and responsibility?

David Curry: Since the Bill's entire philosophy is based on speeding up the planning process, will the Secretary of State jog my memory on this point? In the case of building a third runway, how long does she envisage will elapse between the promoter moving to consultation and the decision to build the additional runway?

Hazel Blears: Under current legislation, we have the precedent of the previous inquiry, which took approximately seven years to resolve. I hope that, under our new regime, the time would be much shorter, all the issues would be considered rigorously and effectively and there would be more public involvement. Those aims do not contradict one another. I do not accept that we cannot have both a quicker, more efficient system and more effective public involvement. That is what I aim to achieve, and I will deal in detail with that point shortly.

Susan Kramer: rose—

Hazel Blears: I want to press on. When I come to the heart of the matter, I am sure that the hon. Lady will have every opportunity to make her points.
	I am not inclined to accept the amendments that would insert a third party into the consultation because I do not believe that it is right. However, I said that I would further consider whether there was a reasonable way in which to place a duty on promoters to implement a due diligence requirement.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe has tabled new clause 39, which would retain a statutory offence against nuisance if an application goes through. I understand that that already applies for railway premises and rail network organisations. The new clause is fairly technical but nevertheless extremely useful. I read it earlier today and I believe that replicating the defence of statutory authority against nuisance claims would be useful, as the current procedures work well. Again, my hon. Friend has been constructive and practical. When I saw the title of the new clause, which deals with statutory nuisance, he did not come to mind, because he has been anything but a nuisance during the process. I am delighted to be able to support new clause 39, which helps to retain the defence against statutory nuisance in our system.
	Let me turn to the large number of amendments that broadly seek to make the independent planning commission a recommending body, with decisions taken by the Secretary of State rather than an independent decision-making body, and to the other set of amendments, which would require that the Secretary of State confirm the decisions of the IPC. In many ways, those are two different formulations of the same thing. Indeed, I have been struggling to think how those two propositions are markedly different.
	Amendment No. 5 would amend clause 1 to make the purpose of the independent planning commission advisory only. Amendments Nos. 6 to 51 and 60 to 64 go right the way through the Bill, either amending the relevant clauses so that the role of the IPC is to advise the Secretary of State in determining applications or replacing the IPC with the Secretary of State in those clauses that confer or refer to decision-making powers. The purpose of those amendments is to change the fundamental principle throughout the Bill that the IPC is the independent decision-making body.
	The second set of amendments, which are amendments Nos. 68 and 339, seeks to ensure that the decisions of the IPC are subject to confirmation and provides a period of up to six months in which the Secretary of State has the right to make that decision.
	Let me deal with those two blocks of amendments before turning to the third block, which is slightly different and provides that if the panel or the council proposes to make an order that would modify or exclude legislation, which is an important issue, that order would be subject to special parliamentary procedures. In effect, those procedures would mean that the decision would return to the Secretary of State, subject to approval by Parliament, rather than being taken by the IPC. All those areas are interrelated and interconnected, and I propose to deal with them in that way.
	Let me start with the amendments that seek to turn the IPC into a recommending body. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government explained when he gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee—it seems a long time ago now—we see three main benefits to setting up an independent body to consider nationally significant infrastructure projects and giving it the power to make the decisions. The first of those benefits is speed and efficiency, to which the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) has referred. We think that our proposal will mean that decisions are made more quickly.
	Currently, decisions are made and examined by the Planning Inspectorate, and are often subject to inquiry and then decided on by Ministers.  [ Interruption. ] Excuse me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am talking rather too quickly and rather too loud, so I will just take a breath. The current position means that, sequentially, there are basically two processes, with two separate bodies going over the same ground. With some decisions, the proposals can involve more than one Minister, from more than one Department. That adds complexity and potential delay.
	Every hon. Member who has spoken, including Opposition Members, has acknowledged that our current system takes too long, is immensely costly and is in many cases almost impenetrable to members of the public. There is a lack of transparency and clarity, and there is a recognition throughout the House that things have to change. As the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said earlier, the system is not working, and therefore needs to be brought up to date and made fit for the modern world in which we live. The proposals that we have made will help us to do just that.
	We can improve speed and efficiency without sacrificing democracy and local involvement, and I am sure that this debate will explore those issues. However, it is unacceptable that, for example, the upgrade to the North Yorkshire power grid took just over six years and that, on average, wind farm applications take more than two years. In fact, wind farm applications totalling more than 1,400 MW are stuck in the system. Some 500 MW of that capacity would fall to the independent planning commission and would, I understand, be enough to power 1 million homes. All those applications are clogged up and snarled up in a fairly antiquated system that cannot process them.
	I am genuinely concerned that the decisions that need to be taken in the long-term interests not just of the economy but of the environment will continually be frustrated unless we make some fairly bold and radical changes to our existing planning system.

Daniel Rogerson: I am interested in the Secretary of State's terminology in respect of processing applications. I am concerned that it tends to imply that we want things decided without communities having the chance to oppose them effectively, that the Government see such projects as things that must happen and that the IPC will therefore be given a fairly firm steer that it needs to get through them quickly. I am talking not so much about what she said about a deliberative process; rather, the important thing is not just that decisions are taken quickly and that the process is effective, which I accept, but that they are right.

Hazel Blears: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman and I agree about that. Speed and efficiency are important, but they are not the only considerations. Decisions must be properly explored; they need to be effective and to command support because they have been subjected to testing and a proper rigorous examination. I entirely agree, but there is no getting away from the fact that over the next 10 or 20 years, we are going to have to renew a third of our energy-generating capacity in this country and we will need a diverse energy policy that seeks to get the benefits from more than just gas, where we are now becoming a net importer rather than exporter. The people of this country do not want to have to rely simply on importing gas from a range of other countries, which would then be in a very powerful position over us. That is why they want a diverse energy policy. The people of this country also recognise that in terms of aviation, any decisions are controversial, but they also recognise that we need aviation and that we need the employment that goes with the development of our airport capacity. These are big and difficult decisions, but there is no shying away from them.
	I have to say that what sometimes worries me is that people are prepared to will the ends—we all say we want better decisions, more flexibility, speed and efficiency—but they are not prepared to will the means to get there. That requires being prepared to take some tough decisions in the interests of our country's long-term prosperity. That is the real political test for the Opposition parties, and at the moment, they are in danger of failing it.

Elfyn Llwyd: I understand the logic of the Secretary of State's remarks about the national picture, but does she not share my concern and that of many people out there about clause 13? It deals with 15 potential large-scale developments, all of which are, under the old terminology, "bad neighbour applications" that would necessarily attract the most adverse criticism from and cause the most worry to the public?

Hazel Blears: That is absolutely why we should have a national debate on what the country needs, which will take place around the national policy statement. It is why the public and Parliament should be involved and why Select Committees now have wide-ranging scrutiny powers over the national policy statement. It is why we have a debate in this House and in the other place and why a Minister has to have regard to all of that consultation and discussion before coming back with a designated national policy statement. That is a key crunch point for the Bill.
	I absolutely believe that politicians need to be able to argue their case to say what they think is in the best long-term interests of this country and to have that subjected to scrutiny and challenge in a democratic system. I fundamentally believe that identifying those interests up front in the national policy statement, set against the framework of the independent commission, provides a far more transparent degree of accountability than leaving Ministers to wait until the very end of the process, when they then have to seek to intervene. That is far less effective and less transparent than what is proposed.

David Curry: The right hon. Lady accepts the inconvenience of living in a democracy. However much people might subscribe to the need to do something in the national interest, the fact remains that in moving from the principle to the specifics, they might well decide that they do not want something on the basis of their own interest—and they are entirely right to do so. If the national interest is to be overriding, what is the purpose of the consultation? However well handled, transparent and honest the consultation by an undertaker, in how many circumstances does the Secretary of State think it will be overturned in practice because the locals do not like something, even though the national interest determines that they should be for it?

Hazel Blears: I think the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that I have never regarded democracy as an inconvenience. I regard it as an absolutely vital and fundamental building block of our society. That is why I have stood for office both locally and nationally. I think it is incumbent on politicians to be prepared to make the argument. Sometimes it is not popular, but sometimes we have to do things that cause a great deal of distress and concern to people, because we also must think about balancing the interests of the locality with the national interest. In many ways, that is the job that we are all sent here to do. That is why I absolutely believe that the national policy statement stage, which will be open and transparent for the first time, will provide people with the opportunity to have a say about the country's needs for aviation, nuclear power and other controversial issues.
	I am conscious of the need to balance the different interests, but also of the need to take a decision, so I should like to highlight those areas where I hope to provide further safeguards in the system. That said, we can balance the interests and sit on the fence for ever, but at the end of the day, decisions need to be made.

Nick Raynsford: In replying to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), my right hon. Friend rightly identified the importance of a democratic response. Will she also recognise that there can be tension between a nationally expressed democratic view and a local democratic view? Renewable energy and the promotion of wind farms provide a perfect example. There is overwhelming national support for more effort to extend renewables, but we have found through hard experience that it is extremely difficult to obtain local consent for the installation of wind farms in many parts of the country. It is precisely because of the need for the wider national view to be taken into account, and not always to be subordinate to interests that can often be hostile for local and parochial reasons, that the framework in the Bill is so necessary.

Hazel Blears: I am delighted to endorse that contribution from my right hon. Friend, who, as a former Minister in this field, has had to make some pretty difficult decisions on occasion. The areas—and there are a couple of them—where wind farms have proved popular have been areas where local people have recognised that they can reduce their fuel bills dramatically.

David Curry: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Hazel Blears: I want to make a little more progress.

David Curry: The Secretary of State promised to let me intervene again.

Hazel Blears: Did I promise? Goodness me. Well, I am not a person who would ever break a promise. I am delighted to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

David Curry: I would certainly never accuse the right hon. Lady of that.
	The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) is right to suggest that planning is essentially about mediation, but mediation sometimes fails when differences are irreconcilable, as they might be in relation to wind farms in my constituency or, for that matter, the right hon. Gentleman's constituency in part of the Thames area. However important are the consultation processes that help to smooth the way to the achievement of a national consensus, subjecting the national policy statements to a vote in this Chamber would give them the imprimatur of the democratic Assembly of this country. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that will not happen?

Hazel Blears: I do not propose to rehearse the debate held on the first day of Report. The matter was well ventilated then, and following a vote in the House it was decided not to proceed in that way. In those terms, democracy has spoken.
	The right hon. Gentleman would be the first to acknowledge that these are issues concerning policy. I believe that we are going further than any other legislation of which I am aware by enabling that policy to be subject to debate and proper scrutiny, including Select Committee scrutiny, in a way that has never been possible in the past. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, who is a fair person, to reflect on how far we are shifting the Bill to try to strike the right balance and provide mediation in the right way in very difficult circumstances.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Hazel Blears: I will make a little more progress, if I may.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is on that point.

Hazel Blears: It may be on that point, but I am going to make some more progress.
	We consider speed and efficiency to be important, but that is not our sole objective. We also think that our proposals will lead to better-quality decisions. The big, nationally significant infrastructure projects are sometimes uniquely complex, and also involve major technical questions. The Heathrow application involved seven different consent regimes and 37 different planning applications. It was incredibly technical and complex. We need to ensure that the members of the independent planning commission have enough relevant expertise and knowledge to get to grips with some of the issues, and also that they have a background in community engagement and understanding of issues that are important at local level. We do not want them simply to be technical people, removed from matters that local people consider important.

Paul Beresford: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Hazel Blears: I will, for the third time.

Paul Beresford: The Secretary of State is very kind.
	I understand that the national frameworks for aviation will be site-specific. Am I right in thinking that decisions affecting people living near Heathrow, or Gatwick in my case, will be made before responsibility is transferred from here to the new quango?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman is anticipating my remarks. Perhaps I should press on in order to reassure him on that point.
	The third reason for our proposals is that there will be more clarity and transparency in regard to the different roles involved. At present Ministers could be the people who determined the policy, the promoters of a scheme and, at the end of the process, those who made the decisions. I do not think that that is a good arrangement. Having this clarity by setting the policy up front through a national policy statement and then having the IPC look at individual decisions—and then in some cases for there to be a small ministerial intervention—is a good bit of architecture in terms of achieving the checks and balances referred to. There will be a clear separation.
	The second set of amendments addresses where a decision might be taken by the IPC but then be subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State within six months. Some people think that provides an alternative approach to the IPC simply being a recommending body. I do not think that that is so, because requiring the Secretary of State to confirm IPC decisions means in effect that Ministers are taking the decisions themselves. In order to get to the point of being able to decide whether to confirm a decision, it is necessary to review everything that has gone on, so there is still the position— [ Interruption.] Well, I am glad we have consensus on that. I do not need to go into the terminology and tautology of those amendments. They would add to uncertainty, and they might be even worse than the original set of amendments, which would have turned the IPC into a recommending body. That would undermine transparency as well. We will, therefore, oppose those amendments.
	On improving accountability, there will be clear policy statements and a power of intervention. That is already in the Bill. My discussions with Members have led me to believe that many people have not understood that the Bill as currently drafted includes the power for Ministers to intervene in certain circumstances, not only on national security and defence, but, for example, where the national policy statement does not cover a specific issue. The Minister can either decide to review the national policy statement or to take the decision. Again, where circumstances change or there is new evidence, the Minister can say, "The NPS doesn't bite, and therefore I intend to make the decision." That is important, because the terms on which our debate has been conducted have almost been that there is absolutely no point at which Ministers can intervene at all, and I want to make it clear that that is not the case.
	The Bill also includes provisions that make the IPC accountable, and that make it give reasons for its decisions and ensure that they are clear. I know, however, that people still have concerns; there has been vigorous debate in Committee. I therefore propose some changes to address those concerns, which I want to put on the record. I have had extensive discussions with Members—certainly from the Labour Benches—and they have expressed their views constructively, and determinedly, because they feel that these issues are important to themselves and their constituents.
	First, I make a commitment that the national policy statements that cover nuclear power stations and airport development—the two most contentious forms of development covered by the Bill—will be location-specific. The national policy statements will not only cover the national need but will also say that development is likely to take place in certain areas, and it is unlikely to take place in other areas where, simply, it would not be suitable. As far as we can, we will make those location-specific. That is important, as it further constrains the ability of the IPC to take these decisions without reference to a politically determined framework that has been the subject of debate and scrutiny by the Select Committee and of public involvement.

Paul Truswell: As national policy statements may well turn out to be very prescriptive, by the time individual inquiries start at local level, local people might find that the die is already cast on many of the issues covered by them. Will my right hon. Friend therefore spell out in greater detail the extent of public consultation on national policy statements—the length of time and the process that will be followed?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend will know that the phrase in the Bill is quite open regarding the consultation that should take place. I am happy to confirm that it will include consultation with the public. That will vary with each NPS, as some will be on big issues that are locationally specific, so different people are likely to be interested, while others will be more general and will not raise people's concerns. The question is whether the consultation is appropriate and proportionate, and gives people who are concerned the right to have a say. There is the absolute intention on the Government's part to ensure that the country has a debate about these big national issues. Whether Opposition parties like it or not, they have to be faced. If this country is to have an energy supply, the right transport network and aviation, those issues need to be pursued. We cannot put our heads in the sand: we must have that debate with the people.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Hazel Blears: I shall press on, because otherwise hon. Members will not get a chance to debate the issues.
	I shall go through the changes that I intend to make. The NPSs on aviation and nuclear power will be locationally specific. Secondly—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Secretary of State said something really important: will she give way?

Hazel Blears: I said "secondly", and I am going to get through my list, which is also important.
	Secondly, the Government have already proposed that the chair of the IPC should be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by a Select Committee. The Government have now agreed to extend that pre-appointment scrutiny to the deputy chairs of the IPC. I know that that was a concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), who is at this moment chairing her Select Committee, and I am delighted to be able to address it.
	Thirdly, there will be a requirement for the IPC to provide the Select Committee with reports on particular subjects that concern the Committee. Fourthly, the Government have agreed that the relevant Select Committees should be able to call the chair of the IPC before them to explain not just the overall performance of the organisation but particular aspects of decisions. I hope that it will be acknowledged that that is a significant shift in terms of accountability.
	Finally, and most importantly, I can give a commitment that the Government will carry out a review of how the IPC is working two years after its establishment. The Government have also agreed to table amendments in the other place so that if that review reveals problems, they can in future extend the grounds on which Ministers can intervene to remove decisions from the IPC and take the decisions themselves. This new amendment will ensure that if this system is not working, Ministers have a safety valve to widen the basis on which they can take decisions in future. That is a significant addition to the Bill and this is a very strong package of measures that, taken together, will strengthen democratic accountability. Labour Members have pressed hard for better democratic accountability in the new system and I am grateful for their constructive engagement.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Secretary of State give way now?

Hazel Blears: Oh, I'll give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I do not know why the Secretary of State gives way in such a churlish fashion.
	The right hon. Lady has just made the important statement to the House that aviation and nuclear decisions will be site-specific. That effectively freezes in aspic from this moment onwards decisions on those sites until the national policy statements are made. Can she tell the House how long she expects the statements to take so that applications on aviation or nuclear sites can be considered by the IPC?

Hazel Blears: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is perhaps not fully aware of the provisions of the Bill. The process through which the IPC will take decisions does not come into effect until there are designated national policy statements that have to go through the process. Until that point is reached, the existing planning system will continue to operate. If he looks carefully at the Bill, he will see that there is provision for the transition process that existing statements must undergo to become designated national policy statements. I suggest that he study the Bill in a little more detail, because it sets out the position.

John McDonnell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Hazel Blears: I have spoken for 50 minutes so far and I am conscious that hon. Members need time to debate, but I shall give way.

John McDonnell: The Secretary of State has just said that she has made a significant announcement about the two-year review. May we have some clarity about how that review will be undertaken, who will undertake it, where it will report, whether it will be reported to the House, and whether any recommendations for further legislation will be voted on in the House as a result?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend raises a range of detailed issues. My announcement today was that there will be a review that will be supported by a regulation-making power, which will mean that we do not need primary legislation if we decide at that point that we have to widen the intervention power. I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunity to debate the detail of that issue, but as I have said, we will bring forward those proposals' in the other place as the Bill goes through. That is a strong package for democratic accountability.

Paul Beresford: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Hazel Blears: No. If I agree to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is always charming and never churlish, I will get in trouble from the hon. Member for Cotswold, so I am afraid that I cannot do that at the moment.
	I want to deal with the public's right to be heard, because it has been the subject of various amendments, too. I have been very disappointed by some of the campaigning outside the House, which has led the public to believe that the provisions in the Bill will somehow squeeze out the public's right to be involved. Nothing could be further from the truth.
	Under the new system, the public will have at least three opportunities to get involved. They will be able to get involved with the formulation of the national policy statement and with the issues of what the country needs and where it should be on aviation, power and all those big subjects. They will be involved when a promoter brings forward an application, which is a wholly new right that does not exist under the current system, and they will be consulted about the application before it is even considered. They will have a third right to be heard during the examination in public, and they will be able to make representations and to be represented if that is what they want.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Hazel Blears: I shall give way in a moment. I am just going through the three points. The public will be involved in the national policy statement, before the application is brought forward and at the examination in public. There will be a possible fourth area of involvement when a specific issue is considered by the independent planning commission, and there will be a right to be heard. I defy any Member of the House to say that that is not a significant package of public involvement in the British planning system.

Elfyn Llwyd: As a lawyer, the Secretary of State will realise that the best test of any evidence is cross-examination. The commission will decide whether an objector has the right to cross-examine a proposer. That will be absolutely at the discretion of the commission—and that is dubious and worrying. I ask the Government to reconsider. I see that there are four stages, but why leave the veto in?

Hazel Blears: I do not accept that it is a veto, and neither do I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Yes, I am a lawyer, and I have seen many cases in which cross-examination has not necessarily been used simply to test evidence. In inquiries that take three, four or five years and are dominated by highly skilled but also highly paid lawyers, the cross-examination of individuals can often be intimidating and an extremely distressing experience. I have no objection to an inquisitorial system that seeks out the truth. I do not accept that in every circumstance cross-examination is the best way to get to that truth. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Bill does not oust cross-examination. It can take place, but I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise that cross-examination is always the best way to get to that information.

Elfyn Llwyd: There is a veto if the commission decides that cross-examination is not appropriate. In Committee, the Minister for Local Government made the point that the commission will have overall control of that inquisitorial process, as judges do nowadays. It will decide how things are managed, and it will intervene at times to prevent a long drawn-out affair and unnecessary cross-examination. I cannot understand the Government's thinking.

Hazel Blears: Equally, I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns. It is always appropriate to set rules about how inquiries should be conducted, with guidelines as to how matters should be explored, and what the time scales should be. I do not accept that cross-examination is the holy grail when it comes to testing evidence and arriving at the truth. He will know that legal systems around the world take a different, more inquisitorial approach. The aim with planning inquiries is to balance various parties' interests, and the commission's ability to ask questions in an inquisitorial process may well lead to better results and information than could be achieved otherwise. The trouble with the sort of predetermined process that is the alternative is that people dance around trying to make the best argument, but do not uncover the truth and the best evidence. I counsel the hon. Gentleman against that.

Lynne Featherstone: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Hazel Blears: I intend to finish shortly, but I will give way to the hon. Lady, as she has not intervened before. Before I do, though, I want to say that the new proposals, taken as a whole, give people the right to be heard. I am very conscious that it is often the well-organised pressure groups that can make representations to current planning inquiries. I have no problem with that, and it is right that they should be able to do so, but ordinary people and communities often find it difficult to be represented and to sustain cross-examination. For that reason, this year I have virtually doubled the amount of money going to Planning Aid, which aims to help people who do not normally have a voice. I have set out significantly increased indicative budgets for the next two years, and I want to see whether there is anything more that I can do as well. These are very important issues, about which people are genuinely concerned. I want the small voices to be heard, because very often they are squeezed out of our system. Democracy means that the less powerful people get a say, as well as the powerful organisations and groups.
	I give way to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone).

Lynne Featherstone: I thank the Secretary of State, who is being very generous. Are there any criteria or guidelines on how the new consultation rights can make a difference to a proposal? Many consultations make no difference, and I am worried that people will feel that this is just a tick-box exercise, and not something that can deliver a different outcome.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Lady makes an important point. The Bill contains provisions ensuring that the IPC must give due weight to the various representations that are made. Clearly, experience from other forms of decision making shows that phrases such as "giving due weight" or "having regard to" have specific connotations. There is quite a body of evidence on the weight that should be given to the various criteria, so we should be able to deal with the problem that she has identified. The consultation process is not new; if people want to mount a challenge because their views have not been taken into account, they will know the sort of criteria and weighting that should have been applied. As I said, we can issue guidance about the kind of consultation that ought to take place, and I do not think that the hon. Lady should be too concerned.
	Finally, I turn to new clause 42, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe. It would require the IPC to invite affected local authorities to produce reports on the views of their residents, the impact of a proposal on a community and its interaction with the local development plan. The legal formulation says that the commission "must have regard" to the local impact report, and that is a pretty strong way of making sure that elected local authorities have a bigger say on behalf of their communities. I entirely accept that this is a question of democracy. I want to make sure that we build in as many checks and balances as possible, but at the same time ensure that decisions are made speedily and efficiently. Local authorities will also be statutory parties to the examination. The arguments about the need for a formal role for local government have been very strong indeed, and I very much welcome new clause 42, and the supporting amendments Nos. 349 and 355.
	I urge hon. Members to reject amendment No. 327, tabled by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), which suggests that local authorities should be compelled to produce a report and that the IPC should pay for it. First, I am not in the business of compelling local authorities. I am trying to devolve more to them and give them more power, so I think that local authorities should do it for themselves. Also, the amendment does not make it clear to whom that report should go. The amendment on that matter tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe is much to be preferred. I am sure that the hon. Member for North Cornwall will be disappointed with that.
	The final matter that I wish to deal with is whether a special parliamentary procedure should apply if the IPC wants to amend legislation. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) will know that the provisions on that matter are related to the amendment of some fairly elderly legislation that is often about railways and ports, and in many cases is more than 100 years old. Some of it is hybrid legislation, and on occasion the IPC may need to modify it as part of the single consents regime, which is a real prize that we want to get from the Bill. I want to ensure that it can do that.
	I do not think that we should have a special parliamentary procedure, which would be cumbersome and very difficult to administer. I suspect that beneath the relevant amendments lies the fact that the hon. Lady wants to reinstate either ministerial or parliamentary decision making instead of decision making by the IPC. The amendments are an intriguing way to seek to do that. None the less, on that basis I urge hon. Members to reject them.
	I want to make it clear that we shall accept new clauses 40 to 42 and amendments Nos. 340 to 355, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe.
	I have spoken for far too long, and probably taken far too many interventions. I hope that I have helped Members to see the overall thrust of the Bill, and I genuinely think that we need to make significant progress on getting a better system to take forward our proposals.
	I have just had sight of a letter that National Grid has sent the Leader of the Opposition about its concerns about the Opposition's position on the Bill. It is significant because it states:
	"Improving the way the UK gives planning approval for this infrastructure is now absolutely crucial to delivery of a secure, greener, energy economy for the UK. My fellow energy company Chief Executives and I therefore regard timely passage of the Planning Bill as essential."
	The letter asks all parties to ensure that we can proceed, for the benefit of the environment, and states:
	"Without a much smoother planning process we believe many of the aspirations you set out so clear in your Blue/Green Charter will not be achieved and all of us may find the UK in an ever more vulnerable situation."
	I ask hon. Members to think extremely carefully about that.
	As I have said, we shall support certain amendments, including amendments Nos. 340 to 355. I am grateful to hon. Members for their patience. I look forward to the debate and hope to be able to respond to any other matters that Members might raise.

Jacqui Lait: I had assumed, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we would follow the order in which Members' amendments were so charmingly read out by your predecessor in the Chair, but I rise with great interest after an hour and a minute. I shall try to be brief, because I know that many Members wish to be heard and that we are very short of time because of the programme motion.
	I shall address the amendments in roughly the same order as the Secretary of State and will consider the Government amendments first. She will be delighted to know that I do not have much objection to the amendments on national defence and security. I was pleased to learn that the suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on the commencement of development have been taken up, and I commend the Government for listening to us on at least one matter. If my memory serves, he also brought up the issue of changes in the details of an application during the Committee stage, so we can achieve something.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) on the acceptance of new clause 39, and I hope that he thinks that it is worth it in the long run. On special parliamentary procedures, the right hon. Lady is absolutely correct that we are most concerned about the lack of democracy in the infrastructure planning commission. I will speak to amendment No. 5 and various consequential amendments, which would bolster the special parliamentary procedure. I will also speak briefly to amendments Nos. 55 and 292.
	There has been quite a lot of discussion about the role of national policy statements. I do not wish to be ruled out of order, given that, as the right hon. Lady rightly reminded us, there has been a vote on that in the House. However, I hope that she notes that we stick to the view that national policy statements should be subject to a substantive vote in Parliament to ensure that the British people know that Parliament has spoken and the view given is not just that of the Government. Of course, that process would allow Ministers to retain the right of decision making. I assume that everyone in the House has been taking an interest in planning, so they will know that delays in the planning system are not entirely down to Ministers being unable to make up their minds. One of the reasons there has not been much progress on infrastructure over the past 10 years could be laid at that door.
	We are replacing a tortuous and cumbersome system. However, I hope that I have made it clear on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report how we could deliver decisions on infrastructure more quickly and effectively without quite such a dramatic change—without completely pulling up the plants and chucking them away. If a national policy statement is passed by the House, Ministers will be quite capable of making decisions on infrastructure developments, even though those decisions can be difficult and Ministers might not wish to stand up to defend them. We do not need an unelected and unaccountable quango to do that for us.
	The right hon. Lady did not repeat the argument that the Secretary of State's role is quasi-judicial, which the Minister for Local Government cited regularly in Committee. We accept that, but the British public's perception regards the Secretary of State as the backstop of democratic accountability. One of the reasons Ministers are in post is so that they can take tough decisions, and if the British public do not like those decisions, they can readily make a decision about them at the next election. I was glad that the right hon. Lady put it on record that Parliament will not have a substantive vote on the national policy statement because there is a misapprehension outside the Chamber that it will have such a vote.
	We are sad that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe, who fought a good fight in Committee for retaining democracy in the planning system, has done a deal. When the concessions that he has received are analysed, they do not amount to—

Elfyn Llwyd: A row of beans.

Jacqui Lait: "A mess of potage" is the other phrase that comes to mind.
	I gently point out to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe that a review of the functioning of the IPC after two years of its operations will certainly take place after the next general election. We could achieve what he stood for in Committee, because after the general election, we will review the IPC out of existence. I should also put it on record that any person who applied to be a member of the IPC would have a very short contract. So I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels that we can achieve his purpose for him, and that it was therefore a concession that he could easily make.

Clive Betts: I am listening with interest to the hon. Lady. Will she explain precisely what the policy of the Conservatives would be if they were to get into government after the next election? If they were to abolish the IPC, what would they put in its place? Would they go back to the existing system, with all its delays, which every business organisation in the country has opposed and rejected? Exactly what would they put in its place? They could not abolish it without putting something back.

Jacqui Lait: The hon. Gentleman must have been the bane of the Whip's life in Committee, because I seem to remember that he attended every single sitting. We went through this matter in great detail in Committee, but, because we have only 55 minutes left for this debate under the programme motion, I recommend that he go back and read the record of proceedings. He will then be able to see how we proposed to improve the delivery of infrastructure development; it is all set out in the record.
	The other thing that the hon. Gentleman has kindly achieved is the introduction of location-specific national policy statements for nuclear power stations and airports. The Secretary of State said that those were the two most controversial points, but I look forward to her introducing the national policy statement on hazardous waste very soon. However, we now have location-specific NPSs for nuclear power stations and airports, which, by definition, will effectively give outline planning permission to those developments. The hon. Gentleman will remember that we discussed that matter in detail in Committee.
	The problem with the Government's proposals, and the lack of democracy involved in the proposed system, is that they lay the system open to the possibility of judicial review. Many people sincerely believe that the new system will deliver infrastructure more speedily, but I am afraid that they are likely to get an awful wake-up call. Many of the well-funded organisations who can afford to take court cases to judicial review have advised us that they will do so. So I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his achievements, and I hope that he thinks that it was all worth while.
	However, we will push forward with amendment No. 5. I apologise for all the consequential amendments involved. Their presence just shows that we have very diligent people working on the Bill with us. I would also point out that if the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) wishes to stick to his principles, I will have no problem with that. I could not place a cigarette paper—do we still talk about cigarette papers?—between his amendment and ours, and we would be happy to support his.
	We have been talking about the principles behind the IPC, and the difficulties that we foresee for it. However, we have always supported speedier infrastructure planning. We also believe wholeheartedly in the single consent regime; we just wish that it would go a bit further. We had that discussion in Committee, however, and it is not worth re-opening it here, although I am sure that the Lords will do so.
	I hope that the Secretary of State understands the point behind amendment No. 292. If she does not, I apologise for not making myself clear enough. The amendment seeks to remove the right of the IPC to take into consideration everything that is "relevant and interesting". The original Town and Country Planning Act 1947 stated that "material considerations" had to be borne in mind when reaching decisions. I have been told by my legal friends that the definition of "material consideration" was not agreed until 1970, some 23 years later. Given that the term "relevant and interesting" is possibly even looser than "material consideration", it is not difficult to envisage yet more legal cases to define "relevant and interesting". I urge the Secretary of State to bear it in mind that if the whole issue of "material consideration" is opened up, her wish, and our wish, for a speedier system of delivering infrastructure will almost certainly be challenged in the courts for years to come. I hope that the Secretary of State will table amendments when the Bill reaches the Lords. I make that point in the best interests of planning—I hope that she does not believe that we are playing a party political role—because "relevant and interesting" may be mired in the courts for many more years than she envisages.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I note that my hon. Friend has tabled a number of amendments on the role of the decision maker. The issue is whether the Secretary of State or the IPC makes the final decision. As the Secretary of State has made clear, the Bill prescribes certain circumstances in which she can take the final decision, but does my hon. Friend think that an application for judicial review will be almost inevitable every time the Secretary of State declines to take that decision, which will slow down the big infrastructure projects that we are seeking to speed up?

Jacqui Lait: My hon. Friend makes my point for me. It is not difficult to work out that, at every stage of the process, there will be a judicial review challenge. It is a sadness for me that we in this House are working towards passing a Bill in which the flaws are apparent whenever we make a new point. I wish that Ministers would take that on board, because none of us wants big infrastructure decisions stuck in the system in the way that they have been for the past 10 years in particular.
	The Secretary of State and the Minister for Local Government, who dealt with this in Committee, have made a great deal of the consultation that should be undertaken by applicants for development. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe has obtained an agreement, to which I have no objection, that local authorities will oversee the consultation, but that does not go far enough. Any applicant for any development—we are discussing infrastructure in the context of this Bill—should have not only consulted but resolved as many as issues as possible before submitting the application. If the hon. Gentleman thinks back, he will realise that I made that point, which is one of the ways to speed up the system, in Committee.
	Many of the objections to a planning application can be resolved before they even go to inquiry. These days, the duty to consult is regarded with the deepest scepticism by the people who should participate in the consultation, largely because of the top-down planning system that the Government have imposed through housing targets. People respond to consultations in good faith, but—this is true of a planning application that I have seen in the past 10 days—the decision by the Planning Inspectorate is entirely based on the particular district council not meeting its housing targets. That decision had nothing to do with the merit of the appeal or the views of local people; it was made just because the top-down housing targets had not been met. I am sorry, but consultation is now a dirty word among people who are trying to participate in the development of their communities. We have to go further than that, and I am sorry that this draconian Government do not wish to do so.

David Drew: Will the hon. Lady comment on something that I have difficulty understanding? Where under the national policy statement has there been mention of something site-specific? Does she think that there will have to be a further period of consultation if and when a promoter of a particular site comes forward, or does she think that, once the NPS is in place, that will be taken to have been part of the previous consultation? Will the hon. Lady help me with that?

Jacqui Lait: I find the hon. Gentleman's point challenging and it is part of the difficulty of having a site-specific NPS; the Government have agreed to the site-specific NPS. I hope, however, that the communities involved in such an NPS would take part in the consultation on the details at that stage. But when it came to any application to an inquiry, I hope that they would also take part in that inquiry entirely on local planning issues. That is what we need if the planning system is to be speeded up.
	At present, all the planning inquiries are held up because of the long debate about the policy; that is why having a national policy statement can, by itself, take out a large chunk of time. Whoever is chairing the inquiry should ensure that it focuses entirely on local planning issues. That is how I hope it would work, but currently the Government are trying to implement it. I go no further than that.

Clive Betts: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jacqui Lait: Of course. I keep mentioning the hon. Gentleman; it is only fair that I should give way to him.

Clive Betts: I entirely agree that there should be as much consultation as possible before the application is formally lodged, because it is easiest to resolve problems at that stage. The hon. Lady must therefore surely welcome the whole of chapter 2 of the Bill; it provides a comprehensive approach to pre-application scrutiny.

Jacqui Lait: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point; the Bill just talks about consultation. I may be splitting hairs and I may not understand English terribly well, but to me, consultation does not mean resolution. It means only that we have to talk, not that we have to resolve. That is the key. He may well remember the debate that we had in Committee, although I do not want to repeat it because too many other people want to speak. It was about how various planning applications have been dealt with by pre-application, and how everything had been essentially resolved before it went to the inquiry.

Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. Lady will remember the pre-legislative scrutiny stage of the Bill. We consulted many professional bodies. Did we take any of that consultation on board?

Jacqui Lait: We took quite a bit of it on board, actually.

Elfyn Llwyd: Were there any changes to the Bill?

Jacqui Lait: Oh well, that is different.

Elfyn Llwyd: Ah!

Jacqui Lait: But we certainly took it on board and based a number of our amendments precisely on the information given to us at that stage. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman may remember that we picked up one or two suggestions that the Minister talked about during the pre-legislative scrutiny.
	Finally, I turn to the issue of the right to be heard. I am not a lawyer, but the one thing of which I am very conscious as a guardian of the liberties of the British people is the right to cross-examination. Sadly, the right to be heard is being used in the sense of people being able to speak in an open forum, not in the sense of the right to cross-examination. The right to cross-examination does not mean that everybody has to cross-examine all the time under all circumstances. However, we exist in a system of common law in which the right to cross-examination stems from mediaeval times. Even to suggest that we take that right away from the British people is to challenge one of the fundamental tenets of the British constitution. I find it breathtaking that, on issues of this importance to local communities, it should be thought that they cannot cross-examine the people who have proposals to develop in their area. I do not wish to import that into our legal system. I therefore hope that the Government will come forward with a guarantee in the Lords that those who wish to cross-examine can do so.
	If the hon. Member for Selby presses his amendment, I will suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we support it; otherwise, I hope to press our amendment No. 5.

DEFERRED DIVISION

Madam Deputy Speaker: I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day.
	On the motion on diplomatic and consular protection of Union citizens in third countries, the Ayes were 330, the Noes were 131, so the motion was agreed to.
	 [The Division List s are published at the end of today's debates.]

Planning Bill

Question again proposed.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind hon. Members that there are approximately 40 minutes of this debate left. Perhaps they would bear that in mind when making their contributions.

Clive Betts: From Second Reading onwards, I have spent a lot of time considering various aspects of the Bill. I have made it clear that I support its main intention, which is to provide a more expeditious way of dealing with planning applications for major infrastructure projects. At the same time, I have expressed several concerns about the initial proposals and have sought to try to improve the Bill rather than to oppose it. I have accepted the need for these matters to be dealt with expeditiously and tried to find a way of ensuring that that is done while bringing more accountability and scrutiny into the process. I must say bluntly to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) that I have heard her say that she is in favour of finding a more expeditious method, but I have not heard her propose anything that would deliver it.
	It is all right for us in this House to pass resolutions and legislation committing ourselves to dealing with climate change, putting forward appropriate targets and perhaps even seeking to improve them, but the reality is that if we do not have a mechanism for ensuring that applications for nuclear power stations and wind farms get through in a relatively short period, subject to all the proper scrutiny that is needed, we will never meet any of those targets.
	I have had discussions with right hon. and hon. Friends about the final say in these matters and whether it should be a recommendation or a confirmation process for the IPC, and I have tabled amendment No. 60 and other consequential amendments. It is a difficult issue. My right hon. and hon. Friends have advanced arguments, which we also had in Committee, about whether this is a judge and jury process and whether it creates too much unpredictability. I do not accept either of those arguments. By their very nature, planning applications are unpredictable; otherwise, there would be no point in going through the process of considering them.
	However, I have to accept that there are two areas of concern. First, there will be an additional delay in applications, perhaps of a year or more. I have sat with colleagues and looked at the empirical evidence for that. I would say to hon. Friends who have tabled other amendments—for principled and proper reasons; I respect them for that—that I am not sure that merely stipulating a fixed time in which Ministers would have to reach a conclusion is necessarily a satisfactory way of dealing with this. Ministers might well need more time, and if they are not given it, we could end up with a set of different problems.
	I accept that the existence of policy statements constrains, in political terms, the planning decisions made, whoever makes them. Therefore, I welcome what the Minister promised on the first day of Report—that the policy statements will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Secondly, I welcome the location-specific promise given for the policy statements on nuclear power and airports. At that stage, with parliamentary scrutiny, and with Ministers taking decisions, real political decisions will be made, not quasi-judicial decisions on where developments happen. That is quite important.
	I welcome the process improvements that have been agreed, particularly the commitment to accept new clause 42 and related amendments, which I will want to put to the vote, on the role of local authorities. The commission will have to have a statutory regard to the report produced by authorities that considers views of constituents and an application's relevance to and relationship with the authority's local development framework. Those measures raise local government to a different level in the consultation, and it is important that the body of elected representatives in an area should have that elevated role. I welcome support for that amendment.
	I welcome support for the right of individuals to be heard where compulsory purchase orders affect them, and the acceptance of new clauses 40 and 41, and related amendments.

Elfyn Llwyd: How does the hon. Gentleman's new clause 41 differ from the ordinary right to take a matter to the Lands Tribunal?

Clive Betts: I will not respond to that in technical terms. My understanding is that there is currently a deficiency that would not allow people to have that right, which is covered by the new clause. I would have thought that such a change was fairly uncontentious. As I understand it, it would give people the same rights as they have to a public hearing on applications that go to the IPC. There has been a lot of misunderstanding on this matter, and I hope that Ministers will be able to make it absolutely clear that any individual who expresses an interest in an application that goes to the IPC will be able to ask for and get a public hearing, and that none of those matters will be dealt with by written representations in those circumstances.
	I explored the matter of potential delay with my right hon. Friends, and we come back to the proposals of the hon. Member for Beckenham concerning Ministers' confirmation. I suggested that Ministers could take all the decisions from the IPC and, where there was no contention or they had no concerns, they could fast-track them, but there may be other issues that Ministers might want to take longer to consider. The problem is that if Ministers decided that they had no particular concerns, they would still have to go through a long-winded process of assuring themselves that they did not have concerns. If they did not, a fast-track process might be subject to judicial review, with all the problems that that can bring about.
	It might be possible to introduce additional criteria meaning that Ministers could consider particularly contentious applications, but as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained, the Bill lists criteria such as cases where there are concerns of national security, where there is no national policy statement or where a policy statement is out of date, or becomes out of date before the application or during the process of considering it. In all those circumstances, Ministers can intervene. If there are other circumstances in which ministerial intervention might be appropriate, I would like to hear about them, because I am prepared to consider them, but I thought that it might be best to consider what comes out of the practical application of the process. If, during the first two years, there are clear examples of where it would be more appropriate to refer a matter to Ministers, criteria can be developed at the end of the two-year review. This House sometimes has an obligation to be proactive in such matters. My right hon. Friend has said that there will be pre-appointment scrutiny of the chair and vice-chair. Regular reports will be provided to Select Committees, and Select Committees currently request such reports.
	There is also a crucial point, which I raised, about accountability. Ministers can be brought to the Chamber to explain decisions about applications and now the chairman of the commission can be brought before any Select Committee. Indeed, the commissioners who make decisions can also be requested to appear before a Committee with the chairman to explain their reasons. If the House is proactive, it will build for itself a body of evidence about how the process is working and whether there are problems, and thus contribute to the two-year review. That is a challenge for us.

Paul Beresford: What does the hon. Gentleman expect to happen if, in interviewing the chairman and the Minister, the Select Committee decides that they are wrong, post decision?

Clive Betts: In the end, we can learn from the process whether we should change it and the policy statements in any way. The policy statements will form the basis of the decisions. If the commission has made a decision outwith the policy statement, it is automatically judicially reviewable. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will confirm that we should make it clear that decisions must be based on the policy statements. If we would be more comfortable referring some matters to Ministers, that can be fed into the two-year review.
	The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) knows that, even in the current circumstances, when a Secretary of State makes a decision on the recommendation of a planning inspector, although the Secretary of State can be brought to the House to explain the decision, the House cannot change it. The position of the House will therefore be no different from that under current town and country planning legislation.
	There is a problem with mission creep, which perhaps my right hon. Friend could examine. We set off thinking that there might be 10 to 20 applications a year to the commission. We have now been told that the figure might be 45. Much of that is due to Highways Agency schemes and a view in the Department for Transport that every such scheme should go to the commission. We should reconsider that. Perhaps some Highways Agency schemes of a more local nature could be referred to local authorities or groups of local authorities. That would reduce the need for the commission to consider them all.
	I accept that final decision making is difficult. I have tried to consider it in the context of the need for expeditious decision making and better scrutiny and accountability. I know that some hon. Members of all parties feel that we have not gone far enough, and I hope that we will make some progress. The Secretary of State's proposals will improve the Bill and I am pleased that she has agreed to support some of my amendments. I would like clarification of one or two points, and then I am more than happy not to push amendment No. 60 to a vote and to support the measure, with my right hon. Friend's assurances.

Daniel Rogerson: We are discussing the most contentious aspects of the Bill, as the Secretary of State clearly pointed out. I am delighted that she is here to discuss the measure and to present those aspects this afternoon. I pay tribute to her for doing that, because the Minister for Local Government has handled the measure up to now.
	There is consensus in three corners of the House about one fundamental point, which was raised on Second Reading, in Committee and this afternoon: reform of the planning system to speed up and ensure that decisions are made effectively on major national infrastructure projects is required. Some aspects of the measure set out to do that. There is also agreement that national policy statements are a step forward and will help in that process and that a single consent process is a step in the right direction. Indeed, there is agreement on many aspects.
	However, the Government have failed to provide an answer about who makes the final decision. It is not fair to say that we can have all those other things without a democratically elected person making the final decision. I believe that that flies in the face of the purpose of the Bill and the Government's comments about local determination. Local member review is about strengthening the hand of locally elected representatives to make the final decision after officers have considered it in the first instance. Most hon. Members would support that.
	Amendment No. 339, which the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) tabled, amendment No. 5, which Conservative Front Benchers tabled, and amendment No. 68, which I tabled, would all do something similar. Although we accept that the planning system needs reform and that the Bill contains many helpful steps, the final decision must rest with someone who is accountable, not an appointed quango. Therefore, in common with the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), I am happy to say that my hon. Friends and I will support the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) if he chooses to push his amendment to a vote. Obviously I say that on the basis that he will have the opportunity to do so. Indeed, if he does not press his amendment, let me signal my intention to do so for him, should that prove necessary.
	There are a number of other highly significant amendments in the group. I will try to rattle through them as quickly as I can. Essentially, we must get accountability back into the proposals. Our amendment No. 310, which seeks to limit to 40 the number of applications that the IPC can consider, is an attempt to probe the Minister for Local Government. He said in evidence to the Committee that
	"we can be pretty confident that, unless the proposals in the Bill for what should qualify as infrastructure projects for the IPC changes significantly, the sort of figure that we are talking about—40 or 45 on average a year—is what the IPC would be expected to deal with." ——[Official Report, Planning Public Bill Committee, 10 January 2008; c. 148, Q362.]
	However, in a subsequent parliamentary answer to me, that figure crept up to a firmer 45, plus an unspecified
	"larger number of less complex cases".—[ Official Report, 31 March 2008; Vol. 474, c. 712W.]
	Hon. Members who have been following proceedings on the Bill closely will know that we have returned to the idea of mission creep again and again. To me, that larger number of less complex cases is highly suspicious. Our amendment No. 310 seeks to hold the Government to what we have been told all the way through. I am not convinced that the IPC is the right way to proceed, but if it is, we should at least be able to hold the Government to the assurances that they have given us up to now.
	Amendment No. 327 seeks to make the new development consent process contingent on local priorities, although the Secretary of State was keen to point out that a number of the amendments are concerned with existing guidelines and policies. In common with others who have tabled amendments on that basis, I feel that all those processes and duly agreed-upon procedures and policies should be taken into account by the IPC. I therefore disagree with her that such an obligation should not be imposed on the IPC. Any wins that have been had by the local community and by those concerned with environmental considerations or whatever else it might be should not be lost at that point.
	Many of my constituents, and I am sure those of other hon. Members, have expressed considerable support for amendment No. 66, which the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) has tabled, which would ensure that people have the right to have their voices heard directly. That is an important issue that other hon. Members raised repeatedly in Committee, as we have heard this afternoon.
	New clause 7 seemed to cause the Secretary of State some concern. It deals with independent third-party oversight of consultation and does not really need much more explanation than the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) gave in an intervention, when he asked what confidence people would have in a consultation process carried out by the proposer of a scheme. That is a fundamental flaw in the process. We are talking about a consultation aimed at improving an application, so that when it reaches determination and a more formal inquiry process, a lot of the issues will have been dealt with. However, I am still not convinced that a local community can be confident that the proposer of a scheme will undertake that consultation in such a way that it truly reflects the concerns that have been raised, especially where they fundamentally disagree with what the proposer is trying to construct.
	Previously on Report, we sadly lost the chance to strengthen and improve the Bill with regard to mitigating climate change and adapting to its effects. Hon. Members have tabled amendments to make those points again about the key wins that we have already had on planning policy. We must hold the Government to that. Our amendments Nos. 69 and 70 focus on those issues.
	I am particularly keen that we discuss an issue that the hon. Member for Beckenham raised through her amendment No. 40, which applies to clause 110. The provision will cause much concern to people outside the House, as it will allow the IPC to set aside legislation that has been agreed in the House if it is in some way inconvenient to the determination that it is making. I think that that is fundamentally wrong. If changes to primary legislation are necessary, this House should take the decision on them; it should not be taken by an unelected quango, which is gifted that power under the clause. That is utterly wrong.
	There are a number of other flaws worth exploring. I am confident that many of the amendments in the group—sadly, we will not have the opportunity to vote on many of them this afternoon—would greatly improve the Bill. Let me respond to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), for whom I have a great deal of respect. Time and again in Committee, he stood up to make the case for improving the Bill. Sadly, in Committee as now, he decided not to press his amendments to the vote, so I was not surprised when he chose not to do so again this evening. His powers of analysis are on the record, but his negotiating skills may leave a little to be desired in the light of the concessions that the Secretary of State outlined earlier.
	Certain schemes such as nuclear sites and airport expansions would be considered under the national policy statement site-specific procedure. We have already heard about that; it has clearly been the Government's intention throughout the proceedings. I am sure that Members with constituencies near Heathrow will be concerned that decisions might be taken even further away from local people, who will not realise how crucial it is for them to get involved in the NPS. They will probably be waiting for a local or specific application, not understanding that they need to make their voices heard over the NPS. I doubt whether retrospectively bringing in the IPC chairman to answer questions from Select Committees, will provide much reassurance to people who have had a scheme imposed on their local community.
	I am afraid that I am not convinced by what the Secretary of State said, grateful though I am that she has presented herself to the House this afternoon to try to justify the Bill. As I have already said, my party finds accord with many of the Bill's provisions, but we are certainly opposed on the issue of the IPC taking the final decision on matters of such importance. We shall therefore support the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Selby.

John Grogan: I am grateful for the chance to say a few words in support of amendment No. 339. The Secretary of State, for whom I have great regard, described the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), for whom I have equal regard, as being really useful. I cannot pretend that she will necessarily see my amendment in the same light, but I want to address my remarks specifically to her in order to highlight the two specific merits of the amendment. We on the Back Benches like to listen and learn from what is said by those on the Front Benches; never let it be said that we do not try to do that.
	First, I have heard the words "business" and "certainty" mentioned all the way through these debates, and I believe that my amendment, unlike the Government's confused amendments and explanations of the Bill, gives business the certainty that it requires in promoting big infrastructure investments. As has been pointed out, the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe will create great uncertainty. In two years' time, a review will be conducted, so perhaps the whole system will change. The Secretary of State listed all the criteria whereby Ministers may take decisions under the proposed system. On "Newsnight" last night, the BBC's political correspondent suggested that decisions on all nuclear power stations, for example, could be considered under the national security criteria. Massive confusion is being created, whereas my amendment, specifying a definite six-month period for Ministers to take decisions, would be welcomed by many businesses. When I rang many business people this morning, I found that they were alarmed by the confusion apparent in the Government's proposals.
	Secondly, there is the issue of democracy and ministerial accountability. As my right hon. Friend suggests, tough and controversial decisions are being made. It is all the more important for such decisions to have, and be seen to have, democratic legitimacy if there is not to be a series of protests up and down the country that would slow down the vital national infrastructure projects to which the Government are referring.
	I have reviewed the morning newspapers—just for myself; I was not invited to do so on any radio or television programmes, more's the pity—and it is clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no support. Every leader writer in every newspaper, from the  Morning Star to the  Financial Times, was against her this morning.  The Guardian said that the "final call" should be "taken by a Minister". The  Financial Times said
	"Ministers cannot duck having the final say."
	It is interesting to note that some of the bodies that the Secretary of State is calling in aid are beginning to evaporate, or are becoming a bit flaky. John Cridland, deputy director general of the CBI, said on Radio 5 Live this morning that he thought it might be quite a good idea to have a vote in Parliament on the national policy statements. If only we had known that two weeks ago! I was persuaded to abstain, such is my loyalty to the Government, but had I known that the CBI thought that it was a good idea, I would have changed my mind.
	The Town and Country Planning Association has also issued a statement. It is not just the Minister who receives last-minute statements, by the way: they come to Back Benchers as well. The association has told us that it
	"believes that the use of land is justifiably a political as well as a technical question and therefore that ultimately accountability must lie with elected Ministers."
	That is a very clear statement.
	I read all the pamphlets written by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I take them on holiday and analyse them. She is very strong on democracy. She has brought a great many focus groups to the country, along with a great many scrutiny committees and a great deal of consultation. However, she needs to firm up a little on votes, ministerial accountability, the need for people to stand up and be counted, and the need for others to be able to criticise them for vital decisions, whether on nuclear power stations or airports.
	The cult of experts has its limits. Everyone mentions the Monetary Policy Committee, but it has a pretty narrow remit—money supply. We could mention the committee that chooses the sites for super-casinos, perhaps a less happy experience for the Government. The Government pray in aid the Competition Commission, which, interestingly, has dispensed with all public interest decisions, rightly confining itself to decisions on technical economic matters relating to competition.
	That brings me to the phrase "quasi-judicial". It is said that Ministers merely make quasi-judicial decisions, and are very constrained. As other Members have pointed out, there is a public interest element here. That is why an average of 20 applications a year are turned down: 20 times a year the Government do not approve the recommendations of the Planning Inspectorate. A couple of applications in recent years have been the type that we are discussing today. One was for a gas storage plant, and the other involved a port. On occasion the public interest is weighed up, and Ministers find the experts wanting.
	Let us examine what our great judges have said about the matter. I am sure that, as a lawyer, my right hon. Friend will be well aware of the judgment in R (on the application of Alconbury)  v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (2001 UKHL 23). Lord Nolan said:
	"In the relatively small and populous island which we occupy, the decisions made by the Secretary of State will often have acute social, economic and environmental implications. A degree of central control is essential to the orderly use and development of town and country. Parliament has entrusted the requisite degree of control to the Secretary of State, and it is to Parliament which he"
	—or she—
	"must account for his exercise of it. To substitute for the Secretary of State an independent and impartial body with no central electoral accountability would not only be a recipe for chaos: it would be profoundly undemocratic."
	There are many more statements like that, but I do not have time to quote them now.
	When my right hon. Friend delayed tonight's vote for two weeks of intensive discussions—I am very disappointed, incidentally, that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe did not invite me to meet the Prime Minister on Monday evening; I missed out on that—she said that she wanted the decision to be made in the House of Commons. I am sure that it is just happy coincidence that there is a by-election in Henley tomorrow and some Members will not be here to take part in tonight's vote, but I hope that the right decision will be made in another place. It is interesting that Sir Jeremy Beecham, the Labour leader on the Local Government Association—and another man who has written to us at the last minute—says his group profoundly disagrees with some aspects of the IPC, but that it wants to sort it out in the Lords. We in this House should make a clear statement tonight that we are not happy on the grounds of certainty for business and of democracy. I shall ask for permission to press to a vote amendment No. 339, and also amendment No. 66, which I have not had a chance to talk about. This House should stand up and be counted tonight.

David Curry: We should be grateful to the Secretary of State for coming before the House to argue her case, and she has done so with her usual enthusiasm and consideration. There were times, however, when she reminded me somewhat of Napoleon. Her categorical assertion of the primacy of the national interest, which must override any other consideration, was very powerfully put, and in many ways she is right, in that the issues we face call for bold decision making. The question is how we reconcile the need to take decisions in the national interest with the requirement that ownership should be felt at the level of those people who will pay the price, because in all planning decisions some people pay the bills and others reap the benefits. We must find a way of reconciling that, and find a process that people feel is reasonable.
	A lot will depend on how the mechanism the Secretary of State has outlined will work in practice. It will be up to this House and its Committees to get hold of this mechanism by a prominent part of the anatomy and shake it, and to assert from the very beginning that it intends to play a major role and to call to account in practice, and not just theoretically. We talk a great deal about accountability; we sometimes fail in our own duties to assert it, but we have the power to do so.
	One of my concerns is that we will have yet another quango. It is a curious fact that in England and Wales more people serve on quangos than serve as elected councillors. The "quangocracy" has taken over from the democracy to a significant extent in our life. The Government have been prolific in creating quangos, and here is yet another very important one.
	Planning is an intensely political activity. People sometimes blithely say, "Politicians interfere in the planning process", as if planning were some eternal, infernal or esoteric machine that ought not to be interfered upon by the sort of people who get themselves elected and stoop to that rather dismal task. It is intensely political; it is about mediation—about mediating between individuals. That is what happens when someone wants to build a conservatory or plant a leylandii hedge. It is about mediating between the individual and the community, and between the community and the nation. Planning decisions can overturn people's lives, not merely the value of their properties. The amenities people enjoy shape their lives fundamentally. It is important that their voice is heard, and that they should feel it is heard. It is easy for us to say, "We have provided a lot of consultation", but if people do not feel it is real—if they feel it is a formal mechanism that sweeps them up but that nobody listens—they will be seriously disaffected by the entire process.
	Therefore, this is about people, not stakeholders. There must be clear lines of accountability, because at the end of the day the public have to be able to kick somebody, and they have to be able to kick somebody who feels the pain. On the whole, quangos do not feel the pain, so the kicking can be futile. Politicians do feel the pain, however, for the obvious reason that from time to time that pain can have fairly cataclysmic results for us. It is a mistake to talk about a policy of principle as being the same as the acceptance of the conclusions to that in the specific.
	We do not yet know much about the commission. During the progress of the Housing and Regeneration Bill the name of the new boss was announced at a very early stage, but its passage was rather more rapid than that of this Bill; this has been the most stuttering Bill I can remember in a long time. There has been a huge gap between when it came out of Committee and the first attempt at the Report stage, and then a huge gap before the second attempt at the Report stage. It almost has the feel of being fatally wounded before it gets anywhere near the completion of its passage. Personally, if we are to have this body, I would rather that it had independent people with analytical skills on it than make an attempt to represent every single interest group. I hope that we will never hear the word "stakeholders" used in reference to the people manning the committee. That would be entirely the wrong approach.
	The Secretary of State made two specific concessions. First, she talked about nuclear and airport decisions being locationally specific. However, she talked in terms of having a shortlist of places—areas that might be eligible and areas that would not be. I just want to know how specific the location will be, because that was not clear from her remarks. I cannot conceive, for example, that a decision to build a new runway should not be one for the Cabinet to make. Given its huge implications, such a decision should not be taken any lower than Cabinet level. Secondly, the Secretary of State mentioned the review after two years. I am glad about that, but I wonder just how many cases the commission will have adjudicated on by 3 June 2010.
	We all want more speed in the planning process, but I wonder whether the Bill will improve matters. From the promoters' pre-application consultation process, by the time an application has worked through the system, with all the opportunities for judicial review, I wonder whether we will have done anything more than introduce a system that will take just as long but has had some of the democratic accountability—on which people depend to a significant extent—removed, in an area on which people are pretty disaffected already.

Paul Truswell: I speak in support of amendment No. 66, which I tabled. On Second Reading, I said that I would subject the Bill to a simple test: if my constituents face a major infrastructure planning application, how far would the process allow them to play a significant role in the decision on it. The process by which the IPC will undertake inquiries is grossly inferior to the current system. The measures proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have been a magnificent addition to what already exists: they are not a substitute for it.
	Removing the right of interested parties to test the evidence through cross-examination is a retrograde step. The other proposals in the Bill, such as the open floor session, do not compensate for the removal of the essential right to cross-examine. The open floor session does not include a right to ask questions, to produce witnesses or more formally cross-examine the applicant. It downgrades the right to be heard to little more than a right to sound off. Communities will not be satisfied with the limitations of the measure and the result may be more direct action, as we have seen in the past, or judicial review.
	The Bill provides opportunity for pre-application consultation that does not exist in the current system, but my experience—and that of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait)—is that such consultation is largely meaningless, because it is organised by the developer, who is not an independent arbiter of such matters. To be credible, consultation should and must be organised by publicly accountable bodies with a transparent process.
	Despite all the research that I have done, there is little evidence that the present opportunities for public involvement through oral hearings and cross-examination are responsible for inordinate delays. The terminal 5 inquiry is often mentioned in aid of such arguments, but much of that delay was down to the applicants' lack of preparation, the number of documents submitted, the several regimes under which the application was heard, and the time taken to reach a decision once the inquiry was over. The present system has been caricatured as a barristers' bun fight and we have heard talk of nimbyism and well-resourced non-governmental organisations. However—I think that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) nearly touched on this—it all comes down to what Winston Churchill once said about democracy being the worst form of government apart from all the rest. I believe that the measures that the Secretary of State is seeking to introduce to replace the current situation are simply a case of throwing the baby out of the bathwater, and so I shall want to press amendment No. 66 to a vote.

Hazel Blears: I shall be very brief, because I spoke at length in the earlier part of the day—
	 It being Five o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker  proceeded to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Orders [2 June and this day].
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
	Madam Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

New Clause 12
	 — 
	Effect of intervention

'(1) This section applies if the Secretary of State gives a direction under section 103(1) in relation to an application.
	(2) The Secretary of State has the functions of—
	(a) examining the application, and
	(b) deciding the application.
	(3) The Secretary of State may discharge the function of examining the application by—
	(a) directing the Commission to examine such matters as may be specified by the Secretary of State;
	(b) conducting an examination of any matters in relation to which a direction under paragraph (a) is not given.
	(4) Schedule [Examination of applications by Secretary of State] makes provision in relation to the Secretary of State's function of examining an application under this section.
	(5) An examination under subsection (3)(a) is to be conducted in accordance with paragraph 1 of Schedule [Examination of applications by Secretary of State].
	(6) An examination under subsection (3)(b) is to be conducted in accordance with paragraph 2 of Schedule [Examination of applications by Secretary of State].
	(7) Rules under paragraph 3 of Schedule [Examination of applications by Secretary of State] must provide for a deadline for the completion by the Secretary of State of—
	(a) the examination of the application under subsection (2)(a);
	(b) the examination of any matters under subsection (3)(b).
	(8) The Secretary of State's examination of the application is a statutory inquiry for the purposes of Schedule 7 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (functions etc. of Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council).
	(9) Subsection (5) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 (provisions about costs applying where Minister causes a local inquiry to be held) applies in relation to the Secretary of State's examination of the application as it applies in relation to an inquiry under that section, but with references to the Minister causing the inquiry to be held being read as references to the Secretary of State.
	This is subject to subsection (10).
	(10) Subsections (6) to (8) of section 210 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (provisions about expenses applying where Minister causes a local inquiry to be held) apply in relation to the Secretary of State's examination of the application in so far as relating to a hearing held in Scotland as they apply in relation to an inquiry under that section, but with references to the Minister causing the inquiry to be held being read as references to the Secretary of State.
	(11) In subsection (10) "hearing" means—
	(a) any meeting or hearing that the Secretary of State causes to be held for the purposes of the Secretary of State's examination of the application, or
	(b) a site visit.'.— [John Healey.]
	 Brought up, read the First time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 13
	 — 
	Development for which development consent may be granted

'(1) Development consent may be granted for development which is—
	(a) development for which development consent is required, or
	(b) associated development.
	(2) "Associated development" means development which—
	(a) is associated with the development within subsection (1)(a) (or any part of it),
	(b) is not the construction or extension of one or more dwellings, and
	(c) is within subsection (3) or (3).
	(3) Development is within this subsection if it is to be carried out wholly in one or more of the following areas—
	(a) England;
	(b) waters adjacent to England up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea;
	(c) in the case of development in the field of energy, a Renewable Energy Zone, except any part of a Renewable Energy Zone in relation to which the Scottish Ministers have functions.
	(4) Development is within this subsection if—
	(a) it is to be carried out wholly in Wales,
	(b) it is the carrying out or construction of surface works, boreholes or pipes, and
	(c) the development within subsection (1)(a)with which it is associated is development within section 16(3).
	(5) To the extent that development consent is granted for associated development, section 31 applies to the development as it applies to development for which development consent is required.
	(6) In deciding whether development is associated development, a Panel or the Council must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.'.— [John Healey.]
	 Brought up, read the First time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 39
	 — 
	Legal challenges relating to nuisance etc.

'No proceedings, whether criminal or civil, in nuisance and no civil proceedings in respect of the escape of things from land, other than proceedings for breach of statutory duty, may be brought in relation to development, works or operations authorised by an order granting development consent.'.— [Mr. Betts.]
	 Brought up, read the First time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 40
	 — 
	Notice of persons interested in land to which compulsory acquisition request relates

'(1) This section applies where—
	(a) the Commission has accepted an application for an order granting development consent, and
	(b) the application includes a request for an order granting development consent to authorise compulsory acquisition of land or of an interest in or right over land (a "compulsory acquisition request").
	(2) The applicant must give to the Commission a notice specifying the names, and such other information as may be prescribed, of each affected person.
	(3) Notice under subsection (2) must be given in such form and manner as may be prescribed.
	(4) A person is an "affected person" for the purposes of this section if the applicant, after making diligent inquiry, knows that the person is interested in the land to which the compulsory acquisition request relates or any part of that land.'.— [Mr. Betts.]
	 Brought up, read the First time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 41
	 — 
	Compulsory acquisition hearings

'(1) This section applies where the application includes a request for an order granting development consent to authorise compulsory acquisition of land or of an interest in or right over land (a "compulsory acquisition request").
	(2) The Examining authority must fix, and cause each affected person to be informed of, the deadline by which an affected person must notify the Commission that the person wishes a compulsory acquisition hearing to be held.
	(3) If the Commission receives notification from at least one affected person before the deadline, the Examining authority must cause a compulsory acquisition hearing to be held.
	(4) At a compulsory acquisition hearing, the following are entitled (subject to the Examining authority's powers of control over the conduct of the hearing) to make oral representations about the compulsory acquisition request—
	(a) the applicant;
	(b) each affected person.
	(5) A person is an "affected person" for the purposes of this section if the person's name has been given to the Commission in a notice under section [Notice of persons interested in land to which compulsory acquisition request relates].'.— [Mr. Betts.]
	 Brought up, read the First time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 42
	 — 
	Local impact reports

'(1) Subsection (2) applies where the Commission—
	(a) has accepted an application for an order granting development consent, and
	(b) has received—
	(i) a certificate under section 55(2) in relation to the application, and
	(ii) where section [Notice of persons interested in land to which compulsory acquisition request relates] applies, a notice under that section in relation to the application.
	(2) The Commission must give notice in writing to each of the following, inviting them to submit a local impact report to it—
	(a) each authority which, in relation to the application, is a relevant local authority within the meaning given by section 95(5), and
	(b) the Greater London Authority if the land to which the application relates, or any part of it, is in Greater London.
	(3) A "local impact report" is a report in writing giving details of the likely impact of the proposed development in the authority's area (or any part of that area).
	(4) "The proposed development" is the development for which the application seeks development consent.
	(5) A notice under subsection (2) must specify the deadline for receipt by the Commission of the local impact report.
	(6) The deadline is the deadline for completion of the examination of the application by a Panel or a single Commissioner (see section).'.— [Mr. Betts.]
	 Brought up, read the First time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1
	 — 
	The Infrastructure Planning Commission

Amendment proposed: No. 339, page 1, line 7 at end insert—
	'(2A) Decisions taken by the Commission as part of any function conferred on it shall be subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State.
	(2B) The Secretary of State must decide whether or not to confirm any such decision by the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the day on which the Secretary of State received the decision.'.— [Mr. Grogan.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 260, Noes 303.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say to the House that this is programmed business, and that the amount of time taken to complete that Division was intolerable in the circumstances? I hope that hon. Members will move more quickly through the Division Lobby, should the House decide upon another Division.
	I understand that amendments Nos. 340 to 355, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), have been accepted by the Government. I am therefore prepared to select them for separate Division. We will deal first with amendments Nos. 340 and 341.

Clause 56
	 — 
	Initial choice of Panel or single Commissioner

Amendments made: No. 340, in page 33, line 3, after "received", insert "(i)".
	No. 341, in page 33, line 4, after "application", insert,
	", and
	(ii) where section [ Notice o f persons interested in land to which compulsory acquisition request relates] applies, a notice under that section in relation to the application.".— [Mr. Betts.]

Clause 85
	 — 
	Written representations

Amendment proposed: No. 66, in page 44, line 5, at end insert
	", subject to the right of interested parties to make oral representations.".— [Mr. Truswell.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 306.

Question accordingly negatived.

Edward Davey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman could wait until we have completed these votes, we can deal with it then.

Written representations

Amendment made: No. 342, page 44, line 7, after '86', insert ', [ Compulsory acquisition hearings]'.— [John Healey.]

Clause 88
	 — 
	Hearings: general provisions

Amendments made: No. 343, page 45, line 1, after '86(2)', insert—
	'(aa) to a compulsory acquisition hearing (see section [ Compulsory acquisition hearings]),'.
	No. 344, page 45, line 10, leave out 'an interested party' and insert 'another person'.
	No. 345, page 45, line 15, after '86(3)', insert ', [ Compulsory acquisition hearings](4)'.
	No. 346, page 45, line 16, leave out 'an interested party' and insert 'another person'.
	No. 347, page 45, line 23, after '86(3)', insert ', [ Compulsory acquisition hearings](4)'.
	No. 348, page 45, line 29, leave out 'an interested party' and insert 'another person'.
	No. 350, page 45, line 32, leave out 'an interested party' and insert 'a person'.
	No. 351, page 45, line 32, leave out 'party's' and insert 'person's'.
	No. 352, page 45, line 35, after '86(3)', insert ', [ Compulsory acquisition hearings](4)'.— [John Healey.]

Clause 89
	 — 
	Hearings: disruption, supervision and costs

Amendment made: No. 353, page 46, line 8, at end insert—
	'(ba) a compulsory acquisition hearing (see section [ Comp ulsory acquisition  hearings],'— [John Healey.]

Clause 97
	 — 
	Decisions of Panel and Council

Amendment made: No. 349, page 49, line 22, at end insert—
	'(aa) any local impact report (within the meaning given by section [ Local impact reports](3)) submitted to the Commission before the deadline specified in a notice under section [ Local impact reports](2),'.— [John Healey.]

Clause 98
	 — 
	Decisions of Secretary of State

Amendment made: No. 355, page 50, line 7, at end insert—
	'(za) any local impact report (within the meaning given by section [ Local impact reports](3)) submitted to the Commission before the deadline specified in a notice under section [ Local impact reports](2),'.— [John Healey.]

Clause 100
	 — 
	Timetable for decisions

Amendments made: No. 103, page 50, line 30, after 'decision-maker', insert
	'by virtue of section 96(1)'.
	No. 104, page 50, line 32, at end insert—
	'(d) in a case where the Secretary of State is the decision-maker by virtue of section [ Effect of intervention](2)(b), the deadline for the completion of the Secretary of State's examination of the application under section [ Effect of intervention](2)(a).'.— [John Healey.]

Clause 102
	 — 
	When power to intervene arises

Amendment made: No. 105, in page 51, line 38, after 'applies', insert 'by virtue of this section'.  —[John Healey.]
	 Amendment made: No. 354, in page 52, line 2, after '55(2)', insert
	', and (where section [ Notice of persons interested in land to which compulsory acquisition request relates] applies, a notice under that section,'.— [Mr. Betts.]
	 Amendments made: No. 106, page 52, line 3, leave out 'either the condition in subsection (2) or'.
	No. 107, page 52, line 5, leave out subsection (2).— [John Healey.]

Clause 103
	 — 
	Power of Secretary of State to intervene

Amendments made: No. 108, page 52, line 30, after '(4)', insert
	'In a case where this section applies by virtue of section 102,'
	No. 109, page 52, line 31, leave out '102(2) or (3)' and insert '102(3)'.— [John Healey.]

Clause 104
	 — 
	Effect of intervention by Secretary of State

Amendment made: No. 110, page 52, line 32, leave out Clause 104.— [John Healey.]

Clause 105
	 — 
	Grant or refusal of development consent

Amendments made: No. 111, page 53, line 28, at end insert—
	'(1A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision regulating the procedure to be followed if the decision-maker proposes to make an order granting development consent on terms which are materially different to those proposed in the application.'.
	No. 112, page 53, line 29, leave out subsections (2) to (7).— [John Healey.]

Clause 130
	 — 
	When development begins

Amendments made: No. 161, page 67, line 23, after 'in', insert
	', or carried out for the purposes of,'.
	No. 162, page 67, line 25, leave out from 'means' to end of line 37 and insert
	'any operation except an operation of a prescribed description.'.— [John Healey.]

Clause 131
	 — 
	Benefit of development consent orders

Amendments made: No. 163, page 67, line 42, after 'to', insert 'subsection (3) and'.
	No. 164, page 67, line 42, at end insert—
	'(3) To the extent that the development for which development consent is granted is development within section 16(3), the order granting the consent has effect for the benefit of a person for the time being interested in the land only if the person is a gas transporter.
	(4) "Gas transporter" has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Gas Act 1986 (see section 7(1) of that Act).'.— [John Healey.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should inform the House at this stage that Government new schedule 1, which is marshalled next on the amendment paper, comes under the heading of remaining proceedings in the programme motion made earlier today, and so will be decided at 7 pm.

Edward Davey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether your attention has been brought to the news that the knighthood that was recommended to Robert Mugabe, President of Zimbabwe, in 1994 by the last Conservative Government is to be withdrawn. Could you advise the House on how we can send a message of thanks and congratulations on this wise decision by Her Majesty the Queen, not least because of early-day motion 1406, signed by 99 Members of this House and tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch)?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman has found an effective way of announcing that to the House, and I have no doubt that ways can be found, certainly not under the guise of a point of order, for this matter to be pursued or otherwise discussed.

Graham Stuart: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A year ago today, my constituency was devastated by floods, and a year on, the Pitt report has been produced. Back Benchers, and those on the Opposition Front Bench, did not receive copies of that report until today, whereas members of the press received copies yesterday. Is that an appropriate way for information to be distributed? I know that Mr. Speaker has taken action on statements, to ensure that Members receive information from Ministers at least at the same time as members of the press.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot make an immediate comment on that, but I am sure that Mr. Speaker will note what the hon. Gentleman has said. If he believes that further action is required, he will no doubt take that appropriate action.

New Clause 30
	 — 
	Power to decline to determine applications: amendments

'Schedule [ Power to decline to determine applications: amendments] (power to decline to determine applications: amendments) has effect.'.— [Caroline Flint.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Caroline Flint: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 2— Evidence on applications, appeals and inquiries—
	'After section 323 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 there is inserted—
	"323A Evidence on applications, appeals and inquiries
	(1) If an applicant for planning permission or any director, servant, agent or person on the applicant's behalf, for the purpose of procuring a grant of planning permission—
	(a) knowingly or recklessly makes a statement which is false or misleading in a material particular;
	(b) with intent to deceive, uses any document which is false or misleading in a material particular; or
	(c) with intent to deceive, withholds any material information,
	he shall be guilty of an offence.
	(2) If any person, for the purpose of procuring a particular decision on an appeal, application which it has been directed should be referred to the Secretary of State or on proceedings for the confirmation of an order by the Secretary of State, under this Act—
	(a) knowingly or recklessly makes a statement which is false or misleading in a material particular;
	(b) with intent to deceive, uses any document which is false or misleading in a material particular; or
	(c) with intent to deceive, withholds any material information,
	he shall be guilty of an offence.
	(3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) shall be liable—
	(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; or
	(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or a fine, or both.
	(4) Any person giving expert evidence, whether orally or in writing, to an inquiry or hearing held under this Act shall make a declaration that the evidence they give shall be their professional opinion."'.
	New clause 3— Amendment of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990—
	'(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8) is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 71A insert—
	"71B Telecommunications masts: precautionary principle statement
	(1) Every application for planning permission for telecommunications masts and associated apparatus shall be accompanied by a precautionary principle statement ("the statement").
	(2) A local planning authority on receipt of an application for planning permission for telecommunications masts and associated apparatus, and on the receipt of a notice of appeal, shall—
	(a) make copies of the statement available for inspection, and
	(b) indicate how representations can be made in respect of the statement,
	in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations.
	(3) A local planning authority in considering an application for planning permission for telecommunications masts and associated apparatus, or the Secretary of State on an appeal against a determination or non-determination, shall not make a decision until it, or he, has first taken into account the information contained within the statement and any representations received in respect of that information.
	(4) Where the statement indicates that there is a threat of damage to health or the environment, it shall not be a ground for granting planning permission that there is a lack of full scientific certainty about the extent of the threat of damage to health or the environment.
	71C Telecommunications masts: beam of greatest intensity certificate
	(1) Every application for planning permission for telecommunications masts and associated apparatus shall be accompanied by a certificate ("the certificate") which sets out—
	(a) the area and maximum range of the beam of greatest intensity,
	(b) the minimum and maximum distances at ground level of the beam of greatest intensity,
	(c) an explanation of the way in which the intensity of radiation falls off with distance from an antennae and of the level of the intensity of radiofrequency radiation,
	(d) an indication of where the beam of greatest intensity falls and the nearest and farthest distance from the antenna to these points.
	(2) A local planning authority on receipt of an application for planning permission for telecommunications masts and associated apparatus, and on the receipt of a notice of appeals shall—
	(a) make copies of the certificate available for inspection, and
	(b) indicate how representations can be made,
	in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations.
	(3) Where a beam of greatest intensity falls on any part of any premises or land occupied by or consisting of an educational or medical facility, or of residential property, planning permission shall not be granted before first taking into account the information contained within the certificate, and any representations received in respect of that information.
	(4) For the purposes of section 71B and this section—
	"beam of greatest intensity" means where the greatest exposure to the radiofrequency radiation signal occurs;
	"educational facility" means any premises used for the education of children and young adults, whether such education is full or part time, and includes a nursery school;
	"electronic communications code" means the code set out in Schedule 2 to the Telecommunications Act 1984;
	"exempted apparatus" means—
	(a) a public call box, or(b) an antenna which cannot be used for receiving a signal transmitted from a telecommunications mast, and(c) radio equipment which cannot be used in connection with a telecommunications mast;
	"medical facility" means any premises used for medical treatment or care;
	"precautionary principle statement" means a statement accompanying an application for planning permission for telecommunications masts and associated apparatus which describes the effect upon the environment or human health which might arise from the installation or use of the telecommunications masts and associated apparatus;
	"telecommunications masts and associated apparatus" has the same meaning as the term "electronic communications apparatus" in the electronic communications code, except that the definition of that term does not include exempted apparatus.".'.
	New clause 4— Amendment of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, etc.—
	'(1) The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/418) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (6).
	(2) In Article 1(2) (interpretation), at the appropriate place in alphabetical order, insert—
	""electronic communications code" means the code set out in Schedule 2 to the Telecommunications Act 1984;
	"exempted apparatus" means—
	(a) a public call box, or(b) an antenna which cannot be used for receiving a signal transmitted from a telecommunications mast, and(c) radio equipment which cannot be used in connection with a telecommunications mast;
	"telecommunications masts and associated apparatus" has the same meaning as the term "electronic communications apparatus" in the electronic communications code except that the definition of that term does not include exempted apparatus."
	(3) In Part 2 of Schedule 2 (minor operations) at end insert—
	"Class D
	 Permitted development
	D Development which consists of—
	(a) the use of land by or on behalf of an electronic communications code operator for a period not exceeding 3 months to provide access for and station temporary moveable telecommunications masts and associated apparatus, which is required for the sole purpose of temporarily replacing unserviceable telecommunications masts and associated apparatus; or
	(b) the replacement of telecommunications masts and associated apparatus, including associated equipment and structures and the provision of means of access, which is required for the operation of the Electronic Communications Code Operator's system where such existing telecommunications masts and associated apparatus has become unserviceable.
	 Development not permitted
	D1 Development is not permitted by Class D if the telecommunications masts and associated apparatus are not of the same type and capacity as the unserviceable masts and associated apparatus they are to replace.
	 Interpretation of Class D
	D2 For the purposes of Class D "moveable telecommunications masts and associated apparatus" means masts and apparatus attached to a vehicle, trailer or moveable structure.".
	(4) In Part 17 of Schedule 2 (development by statutory undertakers), in paragraph A1 (development not permitted), after subparagraph (c) insert "or
	(d) telecommunications masts and associated apparatus."
	(5) Part 24 of Schedule 2 (development by electronic communications code operators) is revoked.
	(6) Part 25 of Schedule 2 (other telecommunications development) is revoked.
	(7) The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/2718) is revoked.
	(8) The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/1878) is revoked.'.
	New clause 36— Appeals against enforcement notices—
	'(1) Section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2) omit paragraph (a).'.
	New clause 38— Development of plant or machinery by railway undertakers—
	'In Schedule 2, Part 17, Section A.1(c)(i) of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 after second 'building', insert ', plant or machinery'.'.
	Amendment No. 300, in clause 149, page 77, line 7, leave out 'the regional development agency for its region' and insert
	'a local authority for an area within its region (whether singly or jointly with other local authorities)'.
	Amendment No. 311, page 77, leave out lines 10 to 21.
	Amendment No. 301, page 77, line 12, leave out 'the regional development agency for the region' and insert
	'a local authority for an area within the region (whether singly or jointly with other local authorities)'.
	Amendment No. 302, page 77, line 18, leave out 'the regional development agency for the region' and insert
	'a local authority for an area within the region (whether singly or jointly with other local authorities)'.
	Amendment No. 303, page 77, line 23, leave out 'regional development agency' and insert 'local authority'.
	Amendment No. 304, page 77, line 25 , leave out 'regional development agency' and insert 'local authority'.
	Amendment No. 312, page 77, leave out lines 29 and 30.
	Amendment No. 305, page 77, line 31, leave out 'regional development agency' and insert 'local authority'.
	Amendment No. 306, page 77, line 36, leave out 'regional development agency' and insert 'local authority'.
	Amendment No. 313, page 77, leave out lines 38 to 40.
	Amendment No. 307, page 77, line 39, leave out 'regional development agency' and insert 'local authority'.
	Amendment No. 308, page 78, leave out lines 1 to 28.
	Amendment No. 290, in clause 155, page 84, line 2, at end insert—
	'(7) A local planning authority may arrange for the discharge of their functions under this section by a panel of elected members drawn from other local planning authorities.'.
	Amendment No. 2, page 84, line 37, at end insert—
	'(2A) In section 78 (appeals to the Secretary of State against planning decisions and failure to take such decisions) after subsection (2) insert—
	"(2A) Where a local planning authority approves an application for planning permission and—
	(a) the planning application does not accord with the provisions of the development plan in force in the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated;
	(b) the planning application is one in which the local authority has an interest as defined in section 316;
	(c) the planning application falls within the definition of "major applications", as defined by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for that purpose;
	(d) the planning application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment; or
	(e) the planning officer has recommended refusal of planning permission,
	certain persons as specified in subsection (2B) below may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State.
	(2B) Persons who may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State against the approval of planning permission in the circumstances specified in subsection (2A) above are—
	(a) any persons who have lodged a formal objection to the planning application in writing to the planning authority for the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated;
	(b) other persons at the discretion of a person appointed by the Secretary of State for that purpose.".
	(2B) In section 79—
	(a) in subsection (2), leave out "either" and after "planning authority" insert "or the applicant (where different from the appellant)";
	(b) in subsection (6), after "the determination", insert "(except for appeals as defined in section 78(2A) and where the appellant is as defined in section 78(2B))".'.
	Government amendments Nos. 190 to 193
	Amendment No. 329, in clause 161 page 93, line 34, after '(3B)', insert 'Subject to subsection (3C),'.
	Amendment No. 323, page 93, line 36, after second 'development', insert
	'within the curtilage of a dwelling house'.
	Government amendment No. 194
	Amendment No. 330, page 94, line 4, at end add—
	'(3C) For the purposes of subsection (3B) the Secretary of State may by order prescribe the development orders, or the classes of development described as permitted development in those orders, to which that subsection applies.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 195 to 198
	Government new schedule 5— 'Power to decline to determine applications: amendments.
	Government amendment No. 275
	Government amendments Nos. 280 to 286

Caroline Flint: We now turn to matters pertaining to part 9 of the Bill, including a number of measures that we hope will streamline and speed up the planning system. I understand that those policies were generally welcomed in Committee, although a number of hon. Members had queries about how some things might work in practice. We propose six sets of Government amendments that will make the provisions clearer and easier to use. I will try, in a thematic way, to cover the issues raised and the way in which we deal with them in our amendments, and to respond to the amendments tabled by the Opposition and by some of my hon. Friends.
	First, clause 149 enables the regional assembly to delegate its regional planning functions to the regional development agency. The clause is effective only where the regional assembly chooses to use it and the RDA agrees. Moreover, it enables only delegation, not transfer of planning functions. I know that concerns were expressed in Committee, and have been expressed since, that we may be accused of pre-empting the new legislation required to implement the sub-national review proposals. That is absolutely not the case. I would like to make it absolutely clear that the clause leaves unchanged the ultimate responsibility for regional planning to regional assemblies, whose membership is predominantly drawn from elected local government.
	Amendments Nos. 300 to 308 would replace references to the regional development agency with
	"a local authority for an area within its region (whether singly or jointly)".
	First, regional assemblies can already delegate planning work to local authorities so there is no need for legislation to that effect. Secondly, those changes would mean that they were not allowed to delegate to the RDA, even if they wanted to, because RDAs are currently precluded from doing such work.
	Amendments Nos. 311 to 313, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), would mean that a regional assembly could delegate its work to the RDA, but if the Secretary of State were undertaking the same functions, she would not be able to do so. Under planning legislation there is a reserve power for the Secretary of State to act as the regional planning body. This is, of course, a last resort to be used if there were a very serious problem, such as the collapse of the regional assembly. In such a case, the Secretary of State may want to involve the RDA and the amendments would prevent that from happening.

Clive Betts: I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend on this matter; I tabled amendments just to express concern and raise the issue. Is she saying that those transfers would be encouraged on a voluntary and agreeable basis, and that the power is one of absolute last resort, which the Secretary of State would use only in those circumstances?

Caroline Flint: Absolutely. That is a very clear explanation of what we are saying. The power is one of last resort. We will not take planning powers away from regional assemblies in advance of new legislation, and we will make sure that the Secretary of State undertakes the role of a regional planning body only as a last resort. Only if the regional assembly were to cease to function, or refuse to carry out its duties, which I hope is highly unlikely, might we need to resort to delegating, but not transferring, powers to the RDA.

Lembit �pik: While I am reassured that the current Minister would regard the transference and exercise of those powers by a Minister as an act of last resort, we know from experience that assurances given at the Dispatch Box are not tantamount to guarantees out in the country. What reassurance can we have that a less benign Ministersomeone who prefers to centralise such decisions more than she wouldwould not use that power to centralise decision making and sweep away local democracy?

Caroline Flint: Clause 149 makes it clear that the delegation of planning functions to the regional development agency could happen only when the regional assembly chooses to use that power and the RDA agrees. That should be enough. I hope that those assurances are sufficient to enable hon. Members to decide not to press their amendments.
	Clause 161 covers compensation for removal of permitted development rights. Government amendment No. 194 would reform local planning authorities' liability for compensation for the removal of permitted development rights. It would allow for a maximum amount of time to be set out in secondary legislation between notice being given of a proposed restriction of permitted development rights and its coming into force. Only by giving such notice can the right of compensation be removed. We have already set out a minimum time between notice of a proposed restriction being given and its coming into force to ensure that residents have adequate notice of changes. However, we will consult on the maximum time limit in any secondary legislation to avoid cases in which the time limit was so long that residents would forget about the changes.
	The amendment also makes it clear that when developments commence before notice is given, or during the notice period, and they can be lawfully completed, no compensation is payable. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) has tabled amendments Nos. 323, 329 and 330, and I understand his reasons for doing that. Amendment No. 323 would apply clause 161 only to householder development. Amendments Nos. 329 and 330 would apply it only to classes of development that were specified in secondary legislation.
	I recognise that the amendments imply concerns that clause 161 might have adverse consequences, resulting, for example, in farmers being prevented from carrying out seasonal duties such as providing land for camping, caravanning and so on. The National Farmers Union has made representations on that. We are equally keen to ensure that businesses retain the ability to carry out works without the need to apply for planning permission, when that is appropriate. However, it is important to get the detail right and we want to ensure that any changes do not have adverse consequences. That will mean more work with stakeholders. As a result of that, I expect us to revert to the subject in another place, and I am happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman to discuss it further. On that basis, I ask him not to press his amendments.

David Curry: I am grateful to the Minister for responding so positively. I look forward to those discussions, and on that basis, it will not be necessary to press the amendments.

Caroline Flint: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has decided to take that course of action. We are trying to work constructively.

David Curry: The Minister did not hear what I said. I said that I was grateful to her, that I looked forward to discussing the matter with her and that, in the light of that constructive approach, it would not be necessary to press the amendments.

Caroline Flint: Thank you very much. I have been praised twice on the record; that is not too bad. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support.
	Local member review bodies have created huge debate in local authorities and among those in the planning profession. Several hon. Members have supported the principle of local member review bodies, for which clauses 155 to 158 provide, while pointing out that it is important to sort out how they work in practice. We have discussed the provisions extensively with local government and planning professionals to explore that. I have also received several representations about what is workable. We need to consider whether, given the large number of planning reforms that we are asking local planning authorities to implement, it is also right to ask them to focus on the initiative.
	Although I recognise that amendment No. 290 seeks to be helpful, it would be contrary to the principle of local accountability on which our proposals are based. It would allow local planning authorities to discharge their local member review body functions through panels of elected members drawn entirely from other local authorities. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed to a vote.
	Government amendments Nos. 190, 191 and 192 are minor technical amendments to ensure that, when delegated cases are exceptionally determined by a committee or sub-committee of a local authority in the first instance, the right of appeal to the Secretary of State remains. Amendment No. 190 inserts the necessary provisions for planning applications under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
	Amendments Nos. 191 and 192 insert parallel provisions in relation to applications for lawful use or development certificates and in relation to applications for listed building consent. As I have said, there remain a number of important matters to work through on that proposal, and we may have something further to say when the Bill reaches another place.
	Turning to development consents, I should like to deal with three sets of largely technical amendments, the purpose of which is to make the development control system run more smoothly. Clause 159 deals with repeat applications and twin tracking. Government new clause 30, Government new schedule 5 and Government amendment No. 193 replace clause 159 and enhance the provision already in the Bill. They do so, first, by ensuring that the provisions dealing with repeat applications and twin tracking cover cases where an application is deemed to have been made by way of an enforcement appeal, and, secondly, in the case of twin tracking, by ensuring that applications made on the same day are covered.
	Government amendment No. 195 modifies the provisions in clause 162, which concerns non-material changes to a planning permission. Government amendment No. 195 has the effect that where an applicant has an interest in some but not all of the land to which a planning permission relates, the power can be exercised only in relation to that part of the land in which he or she has an interest.
	The third set of technical amendments relates to clause 163(3), which concerns challenges to decisions called in by the Secretary of State on applications under development orders. Government amendments Nos. 196 and 286 relate to the current drafting of subsection (3), which contains the words Secretary of State. That wording potentially causes a problem for Welsh Ministers, since it might be contested that the term Secretary of State does not include Welsh Ministers. Our amendments fix that problem by removing the words Secretary of State.
	Let me turn to the issues relating to trees. Government amendments Nos. 197, 198, 275, and 280 to 285 are all related to clause 164, which, together with clause 165, I hope will simplify and bring uniformity to the existing system for making and maintaining tree preservation orders. The provisions in those clauses were generally well received in Committee. I hope that the amendments make further small but helpful improvements. In particular, they allow for regulations to permit a local planning authority to impose a time limit on consents for work to protected trees. Currently, consent given for pruning or felling protected trees lasts in perpetuity. However, where approved work has been delayed by several years, it may no longer be appropriate to undertake the work.
	Those amendments also allow for regulations to make provisions ensuring that trees planted as replacements for those that are felled with consent are automatically protected, unless that provision is waived by the local planning authority. In addition, those amendments will ensure that it is an offence not only to carry out unauthorised tree works to protected trees, but to commission a third party to carry out the work on someone's behalf.
	Let me turn to some non-Bill-related measures. There are six amendments that we do not feel relate to the Government's agenda in part 9: Amendments Nos. 2 and new clauses 2, 3, 4, 36 and 38. I hope to persuade hon. Members that those amendments should not be pressed. Let me deal first with amendment No. 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), which concerns third-party rights of appeal. Amendment No. 2 would establish a third party right of appeal against decisions on planning applications. Of course interested parties have the opportunity to have their say on planning cases, but we do not think a third party right of appeal is desirable.
	First, a third party right of appeal would dramatically increase the work load on the appeal system and cause significant delays in issuing decisions, and could also be used perversely to delay many otherwise acceptable developments. In addition, third parties have an opportunity to make their views known through representations at the application stage, via elected councillors, who have a responsibility to act in the general public interest. We in the Department are already working on a review of the planning application process and are also considering ways in which we can make community engagement far more constructive in planning applications at the local level.

Lembit �pik: The Minister will be aware that, in effect, developers currently have two opportunities to appeal against planning conditions, first at the application stage and again, retrospectively, once the cement is dry. Many people who are uncomfortable about the power of developers feel that they are not on a level playing field. Given what the Minister has just said, which I find reassuring, what can she say to those citizens who feel that developers have it more their way?

Caroline Flint: The hon. Gentleman is right to make a case about how development is viewed. One of the problems we face is that planning is often seen as bureaucratic and distant, while development is seen as bad. None of those descriptions is a reality, but there is more we could do on that front. It is important for local authorities to get on with their local development frameworks because that is one way to engage communities in their wider vision for their neighbourhoods.
	The local development framework is a very important document when it comes to assessing future planning applications. That is why we are adopting a number of different activities to improve the basis on which local authorities take decisions on planning applications. They should be based on the vision that communities have, what they need for infrastructure and everything else. Authorities should also look for more imaginative ways of involving communities at the local development framework stage, but also in different ways during the planning process. We often hear the voices of those in communities who are against, but we do not necessarily hear the voices of those who are for, particularly those who do not have a roof over their heads, for example. We are trying to work through some of that, but with all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, I am not sure that the amendment provides the right answer, so I hope that he will withdraw it.

David Drew: In a sense, I understand that we should be looking at the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, but I wanted to look further into how communities can advance their views. I agree with the Minister about the local development framework. The problem is that as those frameworks evolve, communities do not often get the opportunityand they certainly lack the voiceto make the necessary representations. If the Minister would like to talk to me some time about the possibility of a community enhancement Bill, we could look further into how to give communities the voice they need.

Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We recently relaunched planning policy statement 25, which relates to local development frameworks. We also provide online some of the best examples of how local authorities have gone about developing those frameworks, and we refresh that information every six months. That should enable communities and those working in planning departments to have a look at the best approaches. We have also streamlined some of the arrangements by reassuring local authorities that they do not need as many of the documents as they think they need for the local development frameworks. What we want is a clear expression of the vision. We want to ensure that it is easy to develop and easy to convey, while allowing input from the local community.

Andrew George: Notwithstanding the Minister's comments in dismissing the amendment on third party rights of appeal, does she not accept that many communities need further checks and balances, particularly where an application contravenes a planning policy but is nevertheless passed, where it works on the margins of local planning policy, or where, as in my constituency, the regional development agency has been involved in instructing a developer to apply for a certain number of houses, knowing full well that the RDA will have a role in determining the outcome of the application later in the process? Surely in those circumstances, it would be appropriate to have a more transparent mechanism by which the local community could have a third party right of appeal?

Caroline Flint: As I have said, I am not convinced of the argument that we need such a mechanism, but there is a lot more that we could do to make earlier parts of the planning process more inclusive and more accessible. There is a statutory obligation on local planning authorities to produce a statement of community involvement and policies for public involvement in planning functions in section 18 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me about some of his concerns, I will try to share with him some of our ideas for improving community engagement.
	I would like to correct myself; I have issued so much new guidance recently. PPS25, which we updated the other week, deals with floods; it is PPS12 that relates to the local development frameworks.
	New clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon), would make it a criminal offence to give false information on planning applications and appeals. We do not have evidence that that is a widespread problem. With very few exceptions, such as when information is sensitive, all documentation relating to a planning application or appeal is made public, and can therefore be challenged. The Planning Inspectorate already has plans to require witnesses to endorse claims that their evidence is true and represents their professional opinion. It can also take evidence under oath to establish the facts, although that is rarely considered necessary.

Richard Benyon: I tabled the new clause following representations made to me by a constituent who was the victim of a planning application on a neighbouring site that had been made on the basis of what he believed to be false information. On investigation, I saw that there was no sanction in law to deal with cases in which an individual obtains planning permission by giving false information on an application. I tabled the new clause as a probing amendment, as it were, to test the Government and establish whether they knew that the problem existed. I should be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that she would be prepared to discuss the matter further.

Caroline Flint: Obviously, when individual cases occur we should be mindful of them. As I have said, according to the Planning Inspectorate there is no evidence that the problem is widespread, and public documents presented during the process are open to challenge. We fear that routinely checking the accuracy of documentation relating to the large number of applications that are submitted would hinder the speed and efficiency of both the application and the appeal stage.
	The current system is generally trusted, and its decisions are respected. For us to change it, we would require substantial evidence that it was being extensively abused. I accept that the case raised by the hon. Gentleman on behalf of his constituent is important, but I can tell him that the fraudulent obtaining of planning permission is a ground for judicial review, so there is some recourse to the law for individuals.

Richard Benyon: I do not want to prolong this conversation, because I want to allow other Members to talk about the community infrastructure levy. I shall not be pressing the new clause to a vote.

Caroline Flint: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive approach.
	New clauses 3 and 4 deal with health and permitted development rights in connection with telecommunications. Our policy on health in relation to telecommunications is clear: the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. That view is clearly stated in planning policy guidance note 8 on telecommunications, and supported by the National Radiological Protection Board.
	All telecommunications masts should comply with the international guidelines on radiation set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. We believe that those guidelines provide the necessary level of protection for the public, and that submission of a precautionary principle or beam of greatest intensity statement is not necessary.
	New clause 4 would revoke a range of permitted development rights relating to telecommunications masts and associated equipment. We believe that our planning policy in that regard strikes a balance between allowing local residents to have their say in development proposals and ensuring that our telecommunications network remains fit for purpose. We are currently reviewing the permitted development rights relating to electronic communications code operators, and if we decide that change is needed we will consult publicly on any options. New clause 4 would circumvent any public consultation and full consideration of an important planning issue.
	New clause 36, tabled by the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), would remove ground (a), one of the seven grounds for making an appeal against an enforcement notice. I understand that the hon. Members' concern is focused on those who carry out development in breach of the conditions of a planning permission and appeal on ground (a) when subsequently served with an enforcement notice.
	If a breach of condition is the sole reason for taking enforcement action, the local planning authority can serve a breach of condition notice against which there can be no appeal. If the breach is not remedied within the specified period, the developer has committed an offence and is liable to prosecution. I therefore believe that local planning authorities have sufficient powers to deal with this issue, and that the removal of ground (a) would cause unnecessary administrative difficulties for the parties concerned. I hope I have reassured the hon. Members that the current system is the most efficient way of dealing with the issue.
	Moving on to the development of plant or machinery by railway undertakers, new clause 38 would remove permitted development rights for statutory undertakers to undertake essential maintenance and development work without first obtaining planning permission. Permitted development rights for statutory undertakers are well established and rightly allow a large number of routine but essential works to proceed without the need for planning permission. It would not be right to restrict these rights generally, but there may be problems in specific cases. Statutory undertakers should publicise any plans for permitted development if they consider that it might affect amenity or environment. That would give an opportunity for the local planning authority to consider whether to make an article 4 direction requiring the statutory undertaker to apply for planning permission. I believe that these arrangements generally work well. If the hon. Member for North Cornwall has evidence that that is not the case, I will be happy to discuss it further, but at present I think we should retain the current position.

Daniel Rogerson: We are rapidly running out of time in our consideration of the Bill, and we now come to a second significant group of amendments, but before I start addressing it let me welcome the Minister to our deliberations. I think she is the fifth Minister with whom I have now debated aspects of this Bill, so clearly the entire departmental team feels it is worthy of their time and attention.
	First, let me address the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell). The Minister recently referred to telecommunications masts, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to expand on the topic, so all I will say is that he has campaigned on it for a long time. I dispute the Minister's comments on the balance being right, however; many of our constituents feel that it is not quite right, and that there are insufficient opportunities for people to contest decisions about telecommunications masts, and in terms not only of health, but of other matters such as their visual impact.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and I have tabled amendments to improve the planning system, particularly in enforcement; again, the Minister recently discussed that. Planning conditions can make a huge difference to a community's tolerance of whether a particular application is acceptable. Often, our constituents can be dissatisfied about an application winning approval, but hard-won conditions mean that they at least feel that their views have been taken on board as part of the process. However, if a developer then goes on to flout those conditions, as happens all too often, it serves to undermine people's faith in the planning systemtheir faith that their views can effect change and are taken into account. One of our amendments seeks to remove one of the opportunities developers have to apply retrospectively for the lifting of a condition that had been made when the planning application was considered. That would encourage people to believe that their views are being taken into account.
	New clause 38 addresses permitted development rights for railways. I should note that I informed the right hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) that I would refer to an issue that was raised with me by some of his constituents, and that he is aware that we will discuss it. The Minister was kind enough to say that if there are specific problems around permitted development rights, she will look into them, and I will pass on the information that has been passed to me. This particular case involves Southern railway having built a substantial plant to clean trains. It is not a minor plant at the edge of a station, as some Members might think, but a substantial building that cause problems of noise and light pollution to local residents, and they feel that it is the sort of structure that should have been covered by a planning application. I accept that there is a strong case for permitted development rights for smaller additions to ensure that institutions such as railways can operate effectively without having to make a planning application for every minor change. However, the local community would clearly feel that it should have its views taken into account in the case of a significant building.
	I am pleased that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) has, as ever, done considerable work in tabling amendments, especially on the proposed planning powers for regional development agencies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik)who is no longer in his placesaid, some suspicion may remain, despite the Minister's helpful reassurances, that we may be seeing a centralisation of power and an undermining of the democratic accountability of local authorities and their ability to take planning decisions. I have made the case in the past that RDAs are the correct repository for some of those powers. I appreciate the problems, and the Government have announced that regional assemblies are not long for this world. That situation needs to be resolved, but RDAs were set up with clear and limited objectives, and it is perhaps asking too much of them to take on these powers as well.

Julia Goldsworthy: Does my hon. Friend share my chief concern that the RDAs, which report to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, have a primary focus on economic development, rather than the wider issues of sustainability and housing development, so their priorities will differ from those of other organisations? Does he also share my concern that there are currently no satisfactory accountability processes for RDAs? In theory, that takes place through the regional Ministers, but although they are in place, there is no way to hold the RDAs to account.

Daniel Rogerson: I agree with my hon. Friend, and her point is reminiscent of a debate we had in earlier consideration of the Bill, when the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) was keen to ensure that the IPC took account of environmental and sustainability concerns to a greater degree than had been guaranteed by the Government's amendments. Bodies that are established by the Government with a narrow set of objectives will naturally seek to meet those objectives and they may well not therefore prioritise other aspects such as sustainability.
	Local member review has been controversial in some areas and we have been lobbied on the issue. I remain convinced that it is a helpful move in the right direction, and I hope that it will be defended. That would encourage people to believe that accountability is indeed being strengthened.
	The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who is no longer in his place, has withdrawn his amendment after reassurance from the Minister. Despite what I had to say about permitted development rights in another context, most of the issues about which the right hon. Gentleman was concerned are slightly different from those that I described, such as the case of a major light industrial building in an urban area. I am pleased that the Minister is continuing to negotiate on those issues and that we can reach a resolution that will satisfy those in the farming industry that their rights are being protected.
	I am pleased that the issues around RDAs are being aired because they are a cause for concern to many people in the House and outside. I also look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Groveif he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speakeron the issue of telecommunications masts.

Keith Hill: I rise to speak to new clause 38, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson). As he said, it seeks to respond to a railway development by the side of Streatham Hill station in my constituency that has blighted the lives of many of my constituents who live in Sternhold avenue. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to refer to my constituency in the debate.
	The problem for my constituents arises from the construction in 2005-06 of five new platforms, three 300 m long canopies and eight new lighting columns at the railway sidings that immediately abut the rear garden walls of the homes in Sternhold avenue. Not only is there now cleaning and maintenance activity throughout the day and night at the sidings, but the sheer presence and visual impact of the columns and canopies is horrendous. The local topography means that the sidings stand on higher ground than the adjacent houses, so the canopies tower over the homes up to a height of 7.5 m, and at a distance from some homes of only 12 m. For all those poor residents, it is like having a highly modernistic airport terminal building at the bottom of their garden.
	The visual impact of the development means that it dominates the lives of residents and probably also reduces property values, yet the development was carried out under permitted rights without consultation and with limited scope for challenge by the local authority. Whether it was correctly carried out under permitted development rights is a matter of contention, although I suppose that it is arguable that, in drafting the new clause as an amendment to the law, the local Lib Dem councillors and the Lib Dem Front Benchers are tacitly acknowledging that the case was a permitted development and that the law needs to be changed.
	Unfortunately, of course, since the law does not work retrospectively, there would be no benefit to my Sternhold avenue constituents if the new clause were passed. Although I welcome the opportunity to raise this shocking matter in the House on behalf of my constituents, I am not sure that anyone would be helped by the new clause. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall said, its purpose is to require railway undertakings to seek planning permission when they want to install plant and machinery on operational land. However, the issue for my constituents is not the construction of plant and machinery on railway land, but the closeness of the development to their homes. That is why new clause 38 does not meet the case.
	I have looked in detail at the operation of the general permitted development orderindeed, I had responsibilities on it some time ago when I had the honour and privilege to be the nation's Planning Minister. On the whole, the GPDO works well as it is applied to the railways. When the working of the GPDO was last reviewed in the Lichfield report of 2003, only 5 per cent. of responding local authorities reported problems with class A of part 17, which is what we are dealing with. Only 2 per cent. considered class A's permitted development rights to be too loosely defined.
	Railway undertakings make about 1,000 applications under the GPDO each year, many of which involve plant and machinery. I accept that it would be an unreasonable obstacle to the efficient working of the railway and a big new burden on local planners if all proposals to construct plant and machinery were subject to planning consent. I repeat the fact that the problem for my constituents is not the presence of plant and machinery on operational land but the proximity of the development.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is this not almost dj vu for the right hon. Gentleman? He dealt with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 for the Government when I was the Opposition spokesman, and he will recall that that Act exempted Crown exemptions, so that the Crown now has to apply for planning permission. Does he not think that these utilities should be treated in the same way so that when large infrastructure is involvedsuch as the example from his constituencythey ought to have to seek planning permission?

Keith Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that trip down memory lane. He is right to say that we had many exchanges on these matters. Although I contend that it would be inappropriate for every item of plant or machinery to be subject to planning consent, the point that I want to draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister is that the Lichfield report anticipated that there may be circumstances in which a condition ought to be applied for the development of large infrastructure on railway land.
	The Lichfield review of the GPDO suggests in two places that there is a need to consider introducing a distance restriction on developments that might involve night-time activity and visual impacts near residential areas. Paragraph 30 of chapter 21 of the report deals with part 17 of the GPDO, which discusses a failed attempt by a local authority to resist a particular railway development. The report says:
	Whilst it is not clear that this is other than isolated case, it suggests the need to consider whether some restriction of Class A development should apply within a specified distance of residential properties.
	The following paragraph recommends that further consideration be given to clarifying whether buildings related to the washing and maintenance of railway vehicles should not be defined as an industrial process, as is the case with the Scottish GPDO. Interestingly, the report goes on to say:
	This would have some potential for adverse impacts on residential amenity, although this may perhaps be addressed by a condition requiring a minimum distance, e.g. 50 metres, from residential premises.
	In 2003, when the Lichfield report was prepared, it seemed that there could be a problem with intrusive railway developments close to people's homes. Today, in 2008, the Sternhold avenue case shows that such a problem exists: it would therefore be helpful if my right hon. Friend the Minister would undertake to consider amending the GPDO along the lines suggested by Lichfield and bringing forward appropriate secondary legislation in due course.

Caroline Flint: I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution. I do not want to say too much about the situation in the London borough of Lambeth, as I understand that it is considering further action. I am aware of the Lichfield report but, as he has acknowledged, it is not clear whether the problem is widespread. I should be happy to meet him if he thinks that there is more evidence of a wider problem to do with the development's proximity to housing, but part of the balance that I have to strike depends on determining how big the problem is. To coin a phrase, we do not need a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Keith Hill: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that generous offer. It will certainly please my constituents, and I shall certainly avail myself of it, but in her initial statement she referred to the possible use of article 4 directions by local planning authorities to resist undesirable developments of the sort that I have described. She will know that that is not possible under part 11 of the GPDO. In the end, the Sternhold avenue development that has caused so much distress to my constituents was in fact carried out under part 11, and not part 17the subject of new clause 38.
	Like all the permitted development powers, part 11 of the GPDO confers pretty sweeping powers on railway undertakingsfor example, it excludes any requirement for an environmental impact assessment. However, there is a requirement for prior approval, albeit limited to grounds of injury to amenity or better siting being possible. In dealing with that part of the GPDO, chapter 15 paragraph 15 of the Lichfield report notes: Investigation of case studies where part 11 rights have been used failed to find any examples of adverse impacts arising which could not be controlled by local planning authorities.
	It is therefore perfectly clear that local authorities have been able to prevent unreasonable developments. I very much regret that, back in 2002 and later, Lambeth councilat that period under a Liberal Democrat administrationdid not use those grounds at least to put the proposals under vigorous scrutiny. At least local residents would then have become aware of the threat at an early stage. It was a missed opportunity, just as the opportunity was missed to take the enforcement action against Southern railway for which those same Lib Dem councillors are now campaigning. With respect to the hon. Member for North Cornwall, new clause 38 seems rather like a case of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Daniel Rogerson: The right hon. Gentleman has highlighted the fact that he was the Minister at the time when the application went through. He has also highlighted the role of Liberal Democrat councillors, but did he consider at the time that the GPDO needed amending? Could he have intervened to do so, not as the constituency MP but as the Minister, on behalf of all local areas that could have experienced a similar situation?

Keith Hill: That is a very reasonable intervention. To be entirely accurate, the development somewhat post-dated my tenure as the nation's Planning Minister. As my remarks have indicated, I did consider carefully the record and history of the GPDO, which we are debating. My feeling was that we were waiting for the council to report on whether the development was permitted, but that at some stage I would want to make a recommendation about the distance factor. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to do that.
	New clause 38 is about the development of plant or machinery by railway undertakers, and I wish to say a word about the role and responsibilities of precisely the undertakers in the case that I have mentionedSouthern railway and Network Rail. It is all very well for railway undertakers to argue caveat emptor when people choose to live next to the railway, but Southern railway and Network Rail deliberately used part 11 of the order, which minimised the opportunities for local consultation and representation. There was no requirement of prior notice to local residents and only the most cursory notification of the commencement of works. The first that most residents knew of what was in store was a matter of weeks before building work began.
	I want railway operators to think more about the impact of their activities, which have been the subject of this brief exchange. I cannot conceive of the fact that rail managers, engineers or architects would want to live next door to such a monstrous intrusion into people's lives. Yes, the GPDO gives enormous leeway to the railway undertaker, but as usualI know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will understand this pointfreedom has to be matched with responsibility. In the case that I have mentioned, I do not believe that it was.
	Southern railway and Network Rail behaved abominably, but they have the chance to redeem their good name and reputation. The quality of life of my constituents would be greatly improved if the canopy nearest their homes were to be removed. I therefore hope that Southern railway and Network Rail will enter into negotiations with officers and members of Lambeth council as a matter of urgency to remove the canopy nearest the residential properties in Sternhold avenue in my constituency.

Jacqui Lait: It is a pleasure to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, having had an opportunity to listen to the points raised in the debate. I hope that the right hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) will forgive me if I do not follow him in covering the detail of his constituency interest. I am conscious that we are exceedingly short of time and that a number of Members wish to contribute, so I shall be as brief as I can.
	I start by thanking the Minister for taking on board a number of the points that were made in Committee and in subsequent lobbying. I am glad, too, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) has persuaded the Minister that things can be done about permitted development rights for the agriculture industry. I suspect that her colleagues in the Lords may well see the issue covered by new clause 2 re-emerging there, so that we can get further clarification.
	I say to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), with whom I shared many happy hours in Committee, that his new clause 4 on mobile phone masts comes close to a position on which we fought the last election. We believe that mobile phone masts should be brought into the mainstream planning system. That is part of the reason we have supported single consent regimes throughout the passage of the Bill. It was also why I tabled amendments to try to bring all the remaining bits of the electricity, pipelines and gas Acts under one planning regime in the Department for Communities and Local Government.
	I will focus on the amendments that my hon. Friends and I have tabled, starting with amendment No. 300 and the consequential amendments that would be necessary to allow their lordships to consider a logical Bill. The Minister made a fair fist of explaining why the proposals were incorporated into the Bill late in the Committee stage. However, we do not like in any way, shape or form the policy of the remote regional assemblies passing their responsibility for planning to regional development agencies in due course. The Housing and Regeneration Bill, which is nearly an Act, hands over responsibility for housing to the RDAs, and we object to that, too. We do not think that the proposals in this Bill are appropriate because they begin the handover. The ethos of the Bill is one of the Government taking away accountability from the planning system as far as they possibly can. Removing accountability from even the remote regional assemblies by handing responsibility to unelected and unaccountable regional development agencies is entirely wrong.
	It occurs to me that I should have declared an interest. As I have said many times, my husband is the deputy chairman of the South East England Development Agency. However, he is there as an elected member. That does not mean that I resile from our position that RDAs should not have responsibility for housing and planning. They are entirely the wrong bodies for those functions. Housing and planning affect our constituents directly and they are already disaffected by the planning system [ Interruption. ] I welcome hearing a contribution from the Minister for Local Government, whom we have missed. He has been overruled by his lady seniors. Would he like to repeat that comment? I thought that I heard a sotto voce intervention that applied to my husband, but if he does not wish to repeat it, I shall await it on a different occasion. It is lovely to see him back and I hope that he will be able to make a contribution at some point, given that he has worked so hard on the Bill.
	A regional development agency is not the place in which housing and planning powers should be placed, given that they affect our constituents directly. RDAs are unelected and unaccountable. The regional Ministers are next to invisible. As the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy) pointed out, RDAs are not expert and do not have the staff. I recognise that they could hire staff, but that would entirely change their ethos. Their memberships have no expertise in housing and planning, but are focused entirely on economic regeneration. It would be completely inappropriate to hand any planning powers to such a body, so we are opposed to the Government's proposals in principle. The organisations that should have the powers are local authorities, which is why we have tabled amendments to that effect.
	In amendment No. 290, which relates to local member review bodies, we are very generously trying to help the Government out of a hole of their own making. We believe that it is appropriate for local authorities with planning responsibilities to be able to review the decisions of their planning ministers on issues that are devolved to officers. Anyone with experience on a planning committee in a local authority will know that they are more than capable of sending officers back to review a decision, and to challenge it if they believe that that would be in the interests of their constituents.
	I have here a letter from the Minister for Housing, who has come to the House today to talk about the Bill for the first time. The letter is addressed to representatives of the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Royal Town Planning Institute, and it says that the planning decisions made by the local member review bodies would involve only
	the most straightforward applications, such as small householder developments, changes of use, advertisements and shop fronts.
	My copy of the letter is not quite clear, but I think that it was sent in April.
	The Minister said that she had had further discussions with the various organisations to try to persuade them of the rightness of this proposal. However, a briefing that I have received from the Royal Town Planning Institute, dated 30 May, states:
	Proposals for Local Member Review Bodies to hear planning appeals need to be scrapped. These plans will sweep away the right of residents to appeal to an independent and impartial body.
	Clearly, the Minister's persuasive powers have not worked, or at least they had not worked on 30 May with the RTPI. Perhaps things have changed since then, but I do not think so, given the briefings that I have received.
	However, because we believe that it is for local members to make these decisions, we have come up with amendment No. 290, in order to get the Government out of this hole that they have dug for themselves. It proposes that councillors from surrounding local authorities could be invited to sit on the review bodies. As with any of our amendments that the Government are prepared to accept, I am more than happy to offer to amend this one to ensure that it is appropriate. The Minister thought that its wording meant that potentially every member of the review body could come from outside the local authority in question. If she wishes us to amend our amendment, I will be happy to offer to do so. None the less, I would be grateful if consideration could be given to the proposal, because it would deal with the concern that has been expressed by the various bodies involved.
	Working on the basis that we would like to see the changes that I have outlined, I want to ensure that other Members have an opportunity to express their views. We will consider whether to press our amendments to a vote in due course.

David Drew: I rise to speak to amendment No. 2, which stands in my name. Its contents are not a million miles away from the proposals put forward by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) in Committee, and I should state from the outset that I do not intend to seek the leave of the House to press it to a vote, because I have heard what my right hon. Friend the Minister has said. I shall be interested to see what the proposed community empowerment, housing and economic regeneration Bill will do to enhance the opportunity of communities to get their point of view across in relation to aspects of the planning process. It might be one of the laws of politics that Oppositions like third party rights of appeal, and that Governments certainly do not, but I still think that there is merit in making the case that the planning process is not accessible, and certainly does not give a voice, to all communities.
	Two obvious examples are pertinent to my constituency. First, when councillors on a local authority with planning powers support a particular application but people in the area concerned, which may include the parish or town council, are against it, the people have no voice once the decision has been taken. As has been said, the developer has two bites of the cherry in pursuing an application. Indeed, they may have many more bites, because they can keep resubmitting an application until they get consent, whereas those who oppose such an application have one chancethey have no chance if their councillors choose not to listen to their point of view. Secondly, sometimes people live very close to a particular application that is in a different local authority area. It is not unknown for a local authority as a whole to be against an application, but if the people in the community happen to be on the wrong side of the border, it means that there is no opportunity to make their voices heard. Those are two straightforward examples where a third party right of appeal would be of some benefit.
	I know that people will always say that such an approach would not be practical and would be difficult to introduce. However, Australia and the Republic of Ireland, to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall referred in Committee, use such an approach, so there is good practice out there. We have a problem in this country when it comes to allowing the people to have a voice, even though they may choose to use their voice in a respectable way to exercise their democratic opinion.
	I look forward to hearing what the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), has to say. The issue will not go away, because some of us will not let it go away, but this is not the appropriate moment to pursue it. I hope that the Lords will consider the issue and that the next Bill provides proper democratic accountability and an opportunity for people to make their voices heard.

Andrew Stunell: New clauses 3 and 4 did not arrive out of thin air for this debate. They are substantially the same provisions as those included in private Members' Bills promoted by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) in 2004, by me in 2005 and by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) in 2006. Those three Bills were all talked out in one way or another, and we are close to that today, so I hope that you will agree to test the opinion of the House on those new clauses at the appropriate moment, Madam Deputy Speaker, because the House should have an opportunity to say whether the system should be reformed. Those three Bills were supported by members of not only the three biggest parties but fourth parties, too.
	We all have cases involving mobile phone masts in our in-trays. When the House previously considered the matter, the now Minister for Borders and Immigration was saying in his literature that Labour would
	do everything we can to ensure that there are no more phone masts near schools and hospitals.
	I am not sure whether that is still his view.
	I want to make it clear to the Minister that the dissatisfaction is based not on party, but on hon. Members' understanding of the concerns of their communities. The problem is that telecommunications masts were exempted from planning control in 1984. The huge elephant in the room is that the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer received some 30 billion for licence fees. That means that it is difficult for the Government to agree to tighten things up, because some of those people might want their money back.
	There is a problem. I understand the broader national policy context. However, it cannot be right that if I wanted to erect a 15 m high conservatory I would have to apply for planning permissionI would, of course, be refusedbut if I wanted to erect a 15 m high mobile phone mast, I would not need planning permission and could not be refused.

Lembit �pik: The difference is that although a 15 m high conservatory may be aesthetically displeasing, it does not transmit radio waves. Does my hon. Friend agree that as long as the science is still equivocal, local people have the right to expect a greater say in these matters? He may be interested in the fact that Alan Blood, one of my constituents, has written a play about the issue of radio transmission masts, which may not always be welcome in the local community.

Andrew Stunell: My hon. Friend is reflecting a fear that many of our constituents have. I do not want to base the whole of my argument on health considerations. Let us be clear: we will get more radiation from our mobile phones than from any mast, and 60 million of us have mobile phonesso we are in a bit of trouble.

Alun Michael: As the hon. Gentleman said, the radiation from a mobile phone is much greater than that from a mast. On occasions, the lack of a mast can mean that there is an even greater signal in the earpiece as the phone searches for a mast to which to connect. Therefore, counter-intuitively, sometimes it would be better for there to be more masts or for masts to be closer to schools than to have increased signals as a result of that searching. Our consideration of constituents' fears has to be evidence-based.

Andrew Stunell: That brings me neatly on to the argument put forward by Sir William Stewart in his report. He mentioned the precautionary principle and recommended that children under the age of six should not have access to mobile phones for the precise reason that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. That is why my proposals in new clauses 3 and 4 refer to the need to validate what radiation is coming from masts that are close to schools, health facilities and nurseries.
	There are straightforward solutions, andthis point has also been made in previous debatesthis is not an attempt to shut down the mobile phone industry. The industry has 60 million users and is a very important part of our national infrastructure. However, petrol stations and supermarkets are also such a part, and they go through a planning process; it is flawed in some ways, but they nevertheless go through it. If one looks north of Hadrian's wall, one sees that the Scots have amended their planning rules so that mobile phone masts are subject to those controls. As far as I am aware, the mobile phone industry and mobile phone users in Scotland have not lost out as a result.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that part of the solution may be to encourage mobile phone companies to go on to roaming so that there could be more mast sharing? Hopefully, that would reduce the need for so many masts.

Andrew Stunell: I am beginning to wonder whether I circulated my speech notes before the debate, because the hon. Gentleman has certainly got close to what I was going to say. One of the things that the Minister may say, if she has any time, is that mobile phone companies are very responsible and that they have 10 commitments. They are 10 commitments, but they are certainly not 10 commandments; even if they were, commandments tend to be broken quite often. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) introduced a Bill, as a Labour Member, to try to make those commitments into commandments, but he did not succeed. The phone companies have an exceptionally strong record on arrogance and oppression.

Susan Kramer: Does my hon. Friend agree that if mobile phone masts were subject to the planning regime, the companies would be far more likely to co-operate and we would be likely to have fewer mastsand in sensible locations, without competition for separate locations?

Andrew Stunell: I would like to think so; it is certainly true that in every realm of life, including what goes on in this building, if people have the power to do something, they go and do itjust because. That is what the phone companies sometimes do in local communities.
	My case is not an attack on individual companies or on the industry; it is a straightforward case. The mobile phone industry no longer needs the start-up protection that it was given in 1984. It has 60 million customers, for goodness' sake, and 40,000 transmission stationsbase stations, as they are called. We now need to reflect on the fact that our local communities need the assurance that local planning authorities and their local representatives have an effective say in how the mobile phone industry impacts on the local environment. It is surely a matter of public policy that at least a nod should be given towards the recommendations of Sir William Stewart's inquiry and the precautionary principle. The new clauses would require additional statutory assurances that where masts are close to sensitive locations they must have that validation. It would not be a ban or a moratorium but a formal process of validation of radiation levels in those places, somewhat similar to an MOT test for a car. At present, no car can go on the road unless it has type approval, but we do not see that as good enough for individual cars, which need to have MOTs.

Elfyn Llwyd: I fully support what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he aware of last weekend's reports in  The Sunday Times of a link between the huge number of suicides in the Bridgend area and telephone mastsreports that proved to be rather interesting and frightening reading?

Andrew Stunell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support, but I would prefer not to get engaged in the point that he makes.
	New clauses 3 and 4 would allow the House to bring the mobile phone industry back under public scrutiny. There can hardly be a Member in the House for whom this has not been a significant concern in their constituencies since they were elected, however long ago that was. Support for the new clauses would be a signal that we are serious about protecting and representing our local communities. They have all-party supportI was delighted to hear what the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) said on behalf of the Conservativesand I hope that there will be an opportunity to test the view of the House later.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to be able to speak in this debate. Time is marching on quickly, so I just want to make one or two brief points on this large group of amendments with which the Minister dealt in great detail, which was extremely helpful to the House.
	I support the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), who made a cogent case, although I am not sure that he quite understood my comments. I think that it is now technologically possible, via roaming, which happens much more extensively on the continent than it does here, for more mobile phone companies to share masts, which would mean that fewer would be required. However, that does not obviate his point that we still need to bring them within the planning system and they need to have a health check before they are erected.
	I support the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), because I have argued strongly that planning powers should not be given to the regional assemblies. To give those powers to the regional development agencies is an even worse proposal, because they are less democratic than the regional assemblies. The regional assemblies have indirectly elected members, but regional development agencies have no democratic accountability whatsoever. Much of my constituency, which is in the south-west region, is nearer to the Scottish border than it is to Penzance, yet the regional development agency insists on having its offices in Exeter, which is one of the furthest points away from it. The idea that it should control housing numbers in my constituency is completely unacceptable to my constituents.
	As I said to the right hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), I have a sense of dj vu about several of the issues that have been discussed today. He will recall that repeat planning applications came up in our previous debates in 2004, and I welcome those parts of the Bill, and the amendments, that deal with repeat and concurrent planning applications. I have taken part in previous debates on permitted development rights, and I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Streatham, who was right to say that the development in his constituency was carried out under paragraph 17, not paragraph 11, of the general development procedure order, where article 4 would have applied. The Secretary of State talked about using article 4 directives, but as she will know, as she has become such an expert in planning, local authorities are wary of issuing such directives because they have to pay compensation if they do so and permission is passed. They are wary of using that mechanism, and the right hon. Member for Streatham will remember that we had discussions about the difficulties of using such directives in the case of Gypsies.
	I would like to talk briefly about local member review bodies, because there is a serious question about their membership. If they are to work properlyand they could be a good ideathey must seen to be properly objective by our constituents. If people's rights to appeal are taken away in lieu of those local member review bodies, the composition of those bodies should reflect a fair membership that is truly objective, professional and able to act instead of the Planning Inspectorate.
	Finally, I would like to say something about permitted development rights and the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). It is absolutely right that the Minister has agreed to meet members of the National Farmers UnionI declare an interest as a farmer and a chartered surveyor. If farmers' permitted development rights for erecting smaller agricultural buildings are taken away, that will be a cause of concern. Larger agricultural buildings and buildings near public rights of way have to have planning permission under the existing regime so it is only rights relating to small buildings in very rural locations that will be affected by the provisions. I am grateful to the Minister's agreement to meet my right hon. Friend, and I hope that productive discussions will stem from that.
	There are a host of other issues that I could discuss, but time is moving on. I regret that we do not have more time to discuss them, and I regret the fact that we will not get to the clauses on the community infrastructure levy. That is a huge discredit to the Government, because we ought to be discussing that very important part of the Bill today.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 31
	  
	Power to make provision in relation to Wales

'(1) The Welsh Ministers may by order make provision
	(a) which has an effect in relation to Wales that corresponds to the effect an England-only provision has in relation to England;
	(b) conferring power on the Welsh Ministers to do anything in relation to Wales that corresponds to anything the Secretary of State has power to do by virtue of an England-only provision.
	(2) The England-only provisions are
	section 152 (correction of errors in decisions);
	section 155 (determination of planning applications by officers);
	section 156 (determination of applications for certificates of lawful use or development by officers);
	section 157 (validity of decisions made on reviews);
	section 158 (determination of listed building applications by officers);
	section 161 (removal of right to compensation where notice given of withdrawal of planning permission);
	section 162 (power to make non-material changes to planning permission);
	section 166(1) and Schedule 4 (use of land: power to override easements and other rights);
	section 167 (applications and appeals by statutory undertakers);
	section 168 and Schedule 5 (determination of procedure for certain proceedings);
	paragraphs 2(3) and (4) and 3(3) of Schedule [Power to decline to determine applications: amendments].
	(3) Before an England-only provision is brought into force
	(a) the reference in subsection (1)(a) to the effect an England-only provision has is to be read as a reference to the effect the provision would have, if it were in force;
	(b) the reference in subsection (1)(b) to anything the Secretary of State has power to do by virtue of an England-only provision is to be read as a reference to anything the Secretary of State would have power to do by virtue of the provision, if it were in force.
	(4) The Welsh Ministers may by order make provision for the purpose of reversing the effect of any provision made in exercise of the power conferred by subsection (1).
	(5) The Secretary of State may make an order in consequence of an order under subsection (1) for the purpose of ensuring that an England-only provision continues to have (or will when brought into force have) the effect in relation to England that it would have had if the order under subsection (1) had not been made.
	(6) An order under this section may amend, repeal, revoke or otherwise modify a provision of
	(a) an Act, or
	(b) an instrument made under an Act.
	(7) The powers of the Welsh Ministers to make orders under this section are exercisable by statutory instrument.
	(8) Those powers include
	(a) power to make different provision for different purposes (including different areas);
	(b) power to make incidental, consequential, supplementary, transitional or transitory provision or savings.
	(9) No order may be made by the Welsh Ministers under this section unless a draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the National Assembly for Wales.'. [Mr. Dhanda.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Parmjit Dhanda: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 32 Wales: transitional provision in relation to blighted land.
	Government amendment No. 199.
	Amendment No. 298, in page 106 in clause 173, leave out lines 16 to 31.
	Amendment No. 299, in page 106 leave out lines 34 to 38.
	Government amendments Nos. 247, 248, 260, 265 and 267.

Parmjit Dhanda: Let me deal with a group of clauses that were discussed in Committee about Welsh powers, Welsh blight, the Welsh commissioners and their representation and Opposition amendments, which would, in our view, restrict National Assembly for Wales legislative competence.

Lembit �pik: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There was a programme motion earlier and we thought that we would run out of time. Is it in order for us to discuss all the important matters in the Bill that relate to the entire nation of Wales in less than two minutes?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am bound by the order to which the House agreed earlier today.

Parmjit Dhanda: I am sure that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) would have been a welcome member of the Committee. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) served on it and made a good contribution to its deliberations. We have taken on board some of his comments and I know that he agrees that some Opposition amendments, namely Nos. 298 and 299, are a bad idea. We want consistency, with some of the town and country planning measures for England replicated for Wales. The amendments would provide for that.
	Amendments Nos. 199, 247, 248 and 260 would enable Welsh Ministers to apply by order several miscellaneous reforms to the land use planning system, which are currently included in the Bill on an England-only basis. The Welsh Assembly Government believe that there could be merit in introducing the reforms in Wales. It is therefore appropriate for the Bill to recognise that and allow an opportunity for the reforms to be made in Wales. An order-making power is the most effective way in which to achieve that.
	 It being Seven o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker  proceeded to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Orders [2 June and this day].
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
	Madam Deputy Speaker  then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

New Clause 32
	  
	Wales: transitional provision in relation to blighted land

'(1) During the transitional period the repeal by PCPA 2004 of paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 13 to TCPA 1990 in relation to Wales is subject to subsection (2).
	(2) That repeal does not affect anything which is required or permitted to be done for the purposes of Chapter 2 of Part 6 of TCPA 1990 (interests affected by planning proposals: blight) in relation to land falling within any of paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Schedule 13 to TCPA 1990.
	(3) The transitional period is the period during which
	(a) in the case of land falling within paragraph 1 of Schedule 13 to TCPA 1990, a structure plan continues to be or to be comprised in the development plan for an area in Wales by virtue of Part 3 of Schedule 5 to the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 and Part 1A of Schedule 2 to TCPA 1990;
	(b) in the case of land falling within paragraph 2 of Schedule 13 to TCPA 1990, a local plan continues to be or to be comprised in the development plan for an area in Wales by virtue of Part 3 of Schedule 5 to the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 and Part 1A of Schedule 2 to TCPA 1990;
	(c) in the case of land falling within paragraphs 3 or 4 of Schedule 13 to TCPA 1990, a unitary development plan continues to form part of the development plan for an area in Wales by virtue of article 3(1) and (2) of the PCPA No.6 Order 2005.
	(4) In this section PCPA No.6 Order 2005 means the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (Commencement No.6, Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/2847).
	(5) This section is deemed to have come into force on the same day as the repeal of paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 13 to TCPA 1990 came into force in relation to Wales (see Article 2(e) and (g) of the PCPA No.6 Order 2005).'. [Mr. Dhanda.]
	 Brought up, read the First time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3
	  
	Amendment of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

'(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8) is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 71A insert
	71B Telecommunications masts: precautionary principle statement
	(1) Every application for planning permission for telecommunications masts and associated apparatus shall be accompanied by a precautionary principle statement (the statement).
	(2) A local planning authority on receipt of an application for planning permission for telecommunications masts and associated apparatus, and on the receipt of a notice of appeal, shall
	(a) make copies of the statement available for inspection, and
	(b) indicate how representations can be made in respect of the statement,
	in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations.
	(3) A local planning authority in considering an application for planning permission for telecommunications masts and associated apparatus, or the Secretary of State on an appeal against a determination or non-determination, shall not make a decision until it, or he, has first taken into account the information contained within the statement and any representations received in respect of that information.
	(4) Where the statement indicates that there is a threat of damage to health or the environment, it shall not be a ground for granting planning permission that there is a lack of full scientific certainty about the extent of the threat of damage to health or the environment.
	71C Telecommunications masts: beam of greatest intensity certificate
	(1) Every application for planning permission for telecommunications masts and associated apparatus shall be accompanied by a certificate (the certificate) which sets out
	(a) the area and maximum range of the beam of greatest intensity,
	(b) the minimum and maximum distances at ground level of the beam of greatest intensity,
	(c) an explanation of the way in which the intensity of radiation falls off with distance from an antennae and of the level of the intensity of radiofrequency radiation,
	(d) an indication of where the beam of greatest intensity falls and the nearest and farthest distance from the antenna to these points.
	(2) A local planning authority on receipt of an application for planning permission for telecommunications masts and associated apparatus, and on the receipt of a notice of appeals shall
	(a) make copies of the certificate available for inspection, and
	(b) indicate how representations can be made,
	in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations.
	(3) Where a beam of greatest intensity falls on any part of any premises or land occupied by or consisting of an educational or medical facility, or of residential property, planning permission shall not be granted before first taking into account the information contained within the certificate, and any representations received in respect of that information.
	(4) For the purposes of section 71B and this section
	beam of greatest intensity means where the greatest exposure to the radiofrequency radiation signal occurs;
	educational facility means any premises used for the education of children and young adults, whether such education is full or part time, and includes a nursery school;
	electronic communications code means the code set out in Schedule 2 to the Telecommunications Act 1984;
	exempted apparatus means
	(a) a public call box, or(b) an antenna which cannot be used for receiving a signal transmitted from a telecommunications mast, and(c) radio equipment which cannot be used in connection with a telecommunications mast;
	medical facility means any premises used for medical treatment or care;
	precautionary principle statement means a statement accompanying an application for planning permission for telecommunications masts and associated apparatus which describes the effect upon the environment or human health which might arise from the installation or use of the telecommunications masts and associated apparatus;
	telecommunications masts and associated apparatus has the same meaning as the term electronic communications apparatus in the electronic communications code, except that the definition of that term does not include exempted apparatus..'. [Andrew Stunell.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.
	 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	 The House divided: Ayes 57, Noes 310.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 149
	  
	Delegation of functions of regional planning bodies

Amendment proposed: No. 300, page 77, line 7, leave out 'the regional development agency for its region' and insert 'a local authority for an area within its region (whether singly or jointly with other local authorities)'. [Mrs. Lait.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:
	 The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 303.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 155
	  
	Determination of planning applications by officers

Amendment made: No. 190, page 85, line 2, at end insert
	'(za) the local planning authority, or a committee or sub-committee of the authority, have decided to determine the application themselves (by virtue of section 75A(6)),'. [John Healey.]

Clause 156
	  
	Determination of applications for certificates of lawful use or development by officers

Amendment made: No. 191, page 88, line 22, at end insert
	'(za) the local planning authority, or a committee or sub-committee of the authority, have decided to determine the application themselves (by virtue of section 193A(6)),'. [John Healey.]

Clause 158
	  
	Determination of listed building applications by officers

Amendment made: No. 192, page 92, line 34, at end insert
	'(za) the local planning authority, or a committee or sub-committee of the authority, have decided to determine the application themselves (by virtue of section 19A(6)),'. [John Healey.]

Clause 159
	  
	Power to decline to determine subsequent application

Amendment made: No. 193, page 93, line 12, leave out Clause 159. [ John Healey .]

Clause 161
	  
	Removal of right to compensation where notice given of withdrawal of planning permission

Amendment made: No. 194, page 93, line 40, leave out from 'order,' to end of line 4 on page 94 and insert
	'(b) notice of the revocation, amendment or directions was published in the prescribed manner not less than 12 months or more than the prescribed period before the revocation, amendment or directions (as the case may be) took effect, and
	(c) either
	(i) the development authorised by the order had not started before the notice was published, or
	(ii) the order includes provision in pursuance of section 61D permitting the development to be completed after the permission is withdrawn.'. [John Healey.]

Clause 162
	  
	Power to make non-material changes to planning permission

Amendment made: No. 195, page 94, line 24, at end insert
	'(5A) Subsection (5B) applies in relation to an application under subsection (4) made by or on behalf of a person with an interest in some, but not all, of the land to which the planning permission relates.
	(5B) The application may be made only in respect of so much of the planning permission as affects the land in which the person has an interest.'. [John Healey.]

Clause 163
	  
	Validity of orders, decisions and directions

Amendment made: No. 196, page 95, line 11, leave out from '(a)' to end of line 12 and insert 'omit for planning permission.'. [ John Healey. ]

Clause 164
	  
	Tree preservation orders

Amendments made: No. 197, page 97, line 13, at end insert
	'(c) conditions limiting the duration of the consent.'.
	No. 198, page 97, line 21, at end insert
	'(4A) In relation to any tree planted in pursuance of a condition within subsection (4)(a), tree preservation regulations may make provision 
	(a) for the tree preservation order concerned to apply to the tree;
	(b) authorising the person imposing the condition to specify that the tree preservation order concerned is not to apply to the tree.
	(4B) The tree preservation order concerned is the order in force in relation to the tree in respect of which consent is given under tree preservation regulations.'. [John Healey.]

Clause 166
	  
	Use of land: power to override easements and other rights

Amendment made: No. 199, page 99, line 19, at end insert
	'(2) The Welsh Ministers may by order amend Schedule 4 to the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 for the purpose of authorising the use in accordance with planning permission of land acquired under section 21A of that Act, even if the use involves
	(a) interference with an interest or right to which paragraph 6 of that Schedule applies, or
	(b) a breach of a restriction as to the user of land arising by virtue of a contract.
	(3) The power to make an order under subsection (2) is exercisable by statutory instrument.
	(4) The power includes
	(a) power to make different provision for different purposes (including different areas);
	(b) power to make incidental, consequential, supplementary, transitional or transitory provision or savings.
	(5) No order may be made under subsection (2) unless a draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the National Assembly for Wales.'. [John Healey.]

New Clause 33
	  
	Community Infrastructure Levy: procedure

'(1) CIL regulations may include provision about procedures to be followed in connection with CIL.
	(2) In particular, the regulations may make provision about
	(a) procedures to be followed by a charging authority proposing to begin charging CIL;
	(b) procedures to be followed by a charging authority proposing to stop charging CIL;
	(c) consultation;
	(d) the publication or other treatment of reports;
	(e) timing and methods of publication;
	(f) making documents available for inspection;
	(g) providing copies of documents (with or without charge);
	(h) the form and content of documents;
	(i) giving notice;
	(j) serving notices or other documents;
	(k) examinations to be held in public in the course of setting or revising rates or other criteria or of preparing lists;
	(l) the terms and conditions of appointment of independent persons;
	(m) remuneration and expenses of independent persons (which may be required to be paid by the Secretary of State or by a charging authority);
	(n) other costs in connection with examinations;
	(o) reimbursement of expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State (including provision for enforcement);
	(p) apportionment of costs;
	(q) combining procedures in connection with CIL with procedures for another purpose of a charging authority (including a purpose of that authority in another capacity).
	(3) A provision of this Part conferring express power to make procedural provision in a specified context includes, in particular, power to make provision about the matters specified in subsection (2).
	(4) Sections 187 to 189 do not apply to this Part (but CIL regulations may make similar provision).'. [Mr. Watts.]
	 Brought up, read the First time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 34
	  
	Community Infrastructure Levy: repeals

'The following provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (c. 5) shall cease to have effect
	(a) sections 46 to 48 (planning contribution), and
	(b) paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 (repeal of sections 106 to 106B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8) (planning obligations)).'. [Mr. Watts.]
	 Brought up, read the First time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 175
	  
	Charging authorities

Amendments made: No. 200, page 107, line 26, leave out from 'specify' to end of line 27 and insert
	'the authorities which may charge CIL, each of which must be'.
	No. 201, page 107, line 28, at end insert
	'or Part 2 of the PCPA 2004),'.
	No. 202, page 107, line 33, at end insert ', or'.
	No. 203, page 107, line 34, leave out from 'London,' to end of line 35. [ Mr. Watts. ]

Clause 177
	  
	Amount

Amendments made: No. 204, page 109, line 21, at end insert
	'(da) to have regard, to the extent and in the manner specified by the regulations, to other actual or expected sources of funding for infrastructure;'.
	No. 205, in page 109, line 45, after 'for', insert
	'differential rates, which may include provision for supplementary charges, increased rates or'. [Mr. Watts.]

Clause 178
	  
	Application

Amendments made: No. 206, page 110, line 2, leave out 'collects' and insert 'charges'.
	No. 207, page 111, line 1, leave out 'the' and insert 'actual or expected'. [Mr. Watts.]

Clause 179
	  
	Collection

Amendment made: No. 208, page 111, line 25, at end insert
	'(7) Regulations under this section may make provision about the source of payments in respect of Crown interests.'. [Mr. Watts.]

Clause 180
	  
	Enforcement

Amendments made: No. 209, page 111, line 29, leave out 'and the regulations may,' and insert
	'(2A) The regulations may,'.
	No. 210, page 111, line 36, at end insert
	'(ea) conferring a power of entry onto land;
	(eb) requiring the provision of information;'.
	No. 211, page 111, line 39, after 'information', insert 'or failure to provide information'.
	No. 212, page 111, line 40, at end insert
	'(fa) conferring power to prosecute an offence;'.
	No. 213, page 111, line 42, at end insert
	'(h) conferring jurisdiction on a court to grant injunctive or other relief to enforce a provision of the regulations (including a provision included in reliance on this section).'.
	No. 214, page 112, line 3, at end insert
	'(4) Regulations under this section creating a criminal offence may not provide for
	(a) a maximum fine exceeding 20,000 on summary conviction,
	(b) a maximum term of imprisonment exceeding 6 months on summary conviction, or
	(c) a maximum term of imprisonment exceeding 2 years on conviction on indictment.
	(5) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (4) to reflect commencement of section 283 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.'.
	No. 215, page 112, line 3, at end insert
	'(4) In this Part a reference to administrative expenses in connection with CIL includes a reference to enforcement expenses.'. [Mr. Watts.]

Clause 182
	  
	CIL regulations: general

Amendment made: No. 216, in page 112, line 34, leave out from 'include' to 'amending' in line 35 and insert
	'provision of a kind permitted by section 190(3)(b) (and incidental, supplemental or consequential provision may include provision disapplying, modifying the effect of or'. [Mr. Watts.]

Clause 183
	  
	Relationship with other powers

Amendments made: No. 217, page 113, line 4, after 'charging', insert 'or other'.
	No. 218, page 113, line 5, leave out 'charging'.
	No. 219, page 113, line 11, after 'effectiveness', insert ', or increasing the use,'. [Mr. Watts.]

New Clause 28
	  
	Grants for advice and assistance: England and Wales

'In section 304A(1) of TCPA 1990 (grants for assisting the provision of advice and assistance in connection with planning matters), after paragraph (b) insert
	(ba) the Planning Act 2008;'. [Mr. Watts.]
	 Brought up, read the First time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 35
	  
	Application to Parliament

'This Act has effect despite any rule of law relating to Parliament or the law and practice of Parliament.'. [Mr. Watts.]
	 Brought up, read the First time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 50
	  
	Rights of entry

Amendments made: No. 93, page 28, line 28, after 'it', insert 'or right over it'.
	No. 94, page 28, line 34, after 'land', insert
	'or an interest in it or right over it'. [Mr. Watts.]

Clause 82
	  
	Examining authority to control examination of application

Amendment made: No. 95, page 43, line 9, after 'land', insert
	'or of an interest in or right over land'. [Mr. Watts.]

Clause 88
	  
	Hearings: general provisions

Amendment made: No. 96, page 45, line 41, after 'land', insert
	'or of an interest in or right over land'. [Mr. Watts.]

Clause 89
	  
	Hearings: disruption, supervision and costs

Amendments made: No. 97, page 46, line 6, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert 'this section'.
	No. 98, page 46, line 23, at end insert
	'This is subject to subsection (5) of this section.
	(5) Subsections (6) to (8) of section 210 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (c. 65) (provisions about expenses applying where Minister causes a local inquiry to be held) apply in relation to the Examining authority's examination of the application in so far as relating to a hearing held in Scotland as they apply in relation to an inquiry under that section, but with references to the Minister causing the inquiry to be held being read as references to the Examining authority.'. [Mr. Watts.]

Clause 91
	  
	Procedure rules

Amendments made: No. 99, page 46, line 39, after 'Chancellor', insert
	'or (if subsection (1A) applies) the Secretary of State'.
	No. 100, page 46, line 41, at end insert
	'(1A) This subsection applies if the development to which the application relates (or part of the development) is the construction of an oil or gas cross-country pipe-line
	(a) one end of which is in England or Wales, and
	(b) the other end of which is in Scotland.'. [Mr. Watts.]

Clause 95
	  
	Interpretation of Chapter 4: interested party and other expressions

Amendment made: No. 101, page 48, line 22, after 'land', insert
	'or of an interest in or right over land'. [Mr. Watts.]

Clause 99
	  
	Matters that may be disregarded when deciding application

Amendment made: No. 102, page 50, line 18, after 'land', insert
	'or of an interest in or right over land'. [Mr. Watts.]

Clause 147
	  
	Blighted land

Amendments made: No. 184, in page 75, line 8, at end insert
	'(3A) In section 151 (counter-notices objecting to blight notices) after subsection (7) insert
	(7A) The grounds on which objection may be made in a counter-notice to a blight notice served by virtue of paragraph 25 of Schedule 13 do not include those mentioned in subsection (4)(b).'.
	No. 185, in page 75, line 20, leave out 'the Secretary of State' and insert
	'
	(a) if the national policy statement identifies a statutory undertaker as an appropriate person to carry out the specified description of development in the location, the statutory undertaker;
	(b) in any other case, the Secretary of State.
	(7) If any question arises by virtue of subsection (6)
	(a) whether the appropriate authority in relation to any land for the purposes of this Chapter is the Secretary of State or a statutory undertaker; or
	(b) which of two or more statutory undertakers is the appropriate authority in relation to any land for those purposes,
	that question shall be referred to the Secretary of State, whose decision shall be final.
	(8) In subsections (6) and (7) statutory undertaker means a person who is, or is deemed to be, a statutory undertaker for the purposes of any provision of Part 11.'.
	No. 186, page 75, line 24, leave out from second 'the' to end of line 26 and insert 'order granting development consent.'.
	No. 187, page 75, line 28, leave out from 'is' to end of line 30 and insert
	'an order in the terms of the order applied for.'. [Mr. Watts.]

Clause 148
	  
	Blighted land: Scotland

Amendments made: No. 188, page 76, line 27, at end insert
	'(3A) In section 101(1)(b) (notices requiring purchase of blighted land)
	(a) for or 15 substitute , 15 or 17, and
	(b) after Schedule 14 and insert (except in the case of land falling within paragraph 17 by virtue of paragraph 17(2)(c)).
	(3B) In section 102 (counter-notices objecting to blight notices) after subsection (7) insert
	(7A) An objection may not be made on the ground mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (4) in a counter-notice to a blight notice served by virtue of paragraph 18 of Schedule 14.
	(3C) After section 116 insert
	116A Power of Secretary of State to acquire land identified in national policy statements where blight notice served
	Where a blight notice has been served in respect of land falling within paragraph 18 of Schedule 14, the Secretary of State has power to acquire compulsorily any interest in the land in pursuance of the blight notice served by virtue of that paragraph.'.
	No. 324, page 76, line 31, leave out 'the Secretary of State' and insert '
	(a) if the national policy statement identifies a statutory undertaker as an appropriate person to carry out the specified description of development in the location, the statutory undertaker;
	(b) in any other case, the Secretary of State.
	(6) If any question arises by virtue of subsection (5)
	(a) whether the appropriate authority in relation to any land for the purposes of this Chapter is the Secretary of State or a statutory undertaker; or
	(b) which of two or more statutory undertakers is the appropriate authority in relation to any land for those purposes,
	that question shall be referred to the Secretary of State, whose decision shall be final.
	(7) In subsections (5) and (6) statutory undertaker means a person who is, or is deemed to be, a statutory undertaker for the purposes of any provision of Part 10.
	(4A) In section 121 (appropriate enactment for purposes of Chapter 2) after subsection (7) insert
	(7A) In relation to land falling within paragraph 17 of that Schedule by virtue of paragraph 17(2)(a) or (b), the appropriate enactment means the order granting development consent.
	(7B) In relation to land falling within paragraph 17 of that Schedule by virtue of paragraph 17(2)(c), the appropriate enactment means an order in the terms of the order applied for.
	(7C) In relation to land falling within paragraph 18 of that Schedule, the appropriate enactment means section 116A.'. [Mr. Watts.]

Clause 185
	  
	Expressions relating to the Crown

Amendments made: No. 220, page 114, line 2, at end insert
	'(ba) an interest belonging to an office-holder in the Scottish Administration or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of the Scottish Administration by such an office-holder;
	(bb) the interest of the Speaker of the House of Lords in those parts of the Palace of Westminster and its precincts occupied on 23 March 1965 by or on behalf of the House of Lords;
	(bc) the interest of the Speaker of the House of Commons in those parts of the Palace of Westminster and its precincts occupied on 23 March 1965 by or on behalf of the House of Commons;
	(bd) the interest in any land of
	(i) the Corporate Officer of the House of Lords;
	(ii) the Corporate Officer of the House of Commons;
	(iii) those two Corporate Officers acting jointly;'.
	No. 221, page 114, line 12, after 'department', insert
	'or, as the case may be, office-holder in the Scottish Administration,'.
	No. 222, page 114, line 24, at end insert
	'(fa) in the case of land belonging to an office-holder in the Scottish Administration or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of such an office-holder, the office-holder;'.
	No. 223, page 114, line 30, at end insert
	'(i) in relation to land in which there is a Crown interest by virtue of subsection (3)(bb) or (bd)(i), the Corporate Officer of the House of Lords;
	(j) in relation to land in which there is a Crown interest by virtue of subsection (3)(bc) or (bd)(ii), the Corporate Officer of the House of Commons;
	(k) in relation to land in which there is a Crown interest by virtue of subsection (3)(bd)(iii), those two Corporate Officers acting jointly.'.
	No. 224, page 114, line 34, leave out subsections (7) and (8).
	No. 225, page 114, line 44, leave out 'The reference' and insert 'References'.
	No. 226, page 114, line 45, at end insert
	'(10) References to an office-holder in the Scottish Administration are to be construed in accordance with section 126(7) of the Scotland Act 1998 (c. 46).'. [Mr. Watts.]

Clause 186
	  
	Enforcement in relation to the Crown

Amendment made: No. 227, page 115, line 3, at end insert
	'(2) For the purposes of this section the Crown includes
	(a) the Duchy of Lancaster;
	(b) the Duchy of Cornwall;
	(c) the Speaker of the House of Lords;
	(d) the Speaker of the House of Commons;
	(e) the Corporate Officer of the House of Lords;
	(f) the Corporate Officer of the House of Commons.'.  [Mr Watts.]

Clause 187
	  
	Service of notices: general

Amendments made: No. 228, page 115, line 6, leave out from 'served' to end of line 9 and insert
	', given or supplied under this Act may be served, given or supplied in any of these ways
	(a) by delivering it to the person on whom it is to be served or to whom it is to be given or supplied,'.
	No. 229, page 115, line 12, at end insert
	'(ba) by sending it by post, addressed to that person at that person's usual or last known place of abode or, in a case where an address for service has been given by that person, at that address,'.
	No. 230, page 115, line 21, leave out from 'body' to end of line 25 and insert '
	'(i) by delivering it to the secretary or clerk of the company or body at their registered or principal office,
	(ii) by sending it by post, addressed to the secretary or clerk of the company or body at that office,
	(iii) by sending it in a prepaid registered letter or, or by the recorded delivery service, addressed to the secretary or clerk of the company or body at that office.'.
	No. 231, page 115, line 33, leave out 'or given' and insert ', given or supplied'.
	No. 232, page 115, line 35, leave out from '(4)' to end of line 36 and insert
	Subsection (1)(ba), (d) and (e)(ii) do not apply to the service, giving or supply of any of the following
	(a) notice under section 50(4)(b);
	(b) a compulsory acquisition notice under section 121;
	(c) notice under section 136(3);
	(d) an information notice under section 140;
	(e) a notice of unauthorised development under section 142.'. [John Healey.]
	 Amendment made: No. 233, in page 115, line 38, at end insert
	'(6) This section is subject to any contrary provision made by or under this Act.'. [Mr. Watts.]

Clause 188
	  
	Service of documents to persons interested in or occupying premises

Amendments made: No. 234, page 115, line 41, after 'on', insert 'or given or supplied to'.
	No. 235, page 116, line 1, after 'on', insert 'or given or supplied to'.
	No. 236, page 116, line 3, after 'served', insert ', given or supplied'.
	No. 237, page 116, line 9, leave out from 'sent' to end of line 10 and insert '
	(i) in the case of a notice mentioned in section 187(4), in the manner specified in section 187(1)(a), (b) or (c), and
	(ii) in any other case, in the manner specified in section 187(1)(a), (b), (ba) or (c).'.
	No. 238, page 116, line 19, after 'given', insert 'or supplied'.
	No. 239, page 116, line 22, leave out 'or give' and insert ', give or supply'.
	No. 240, page 116, line 24, after 'on', insert 'or given or supplied to'.
	No. 241, page 116, line 30, at end insert
	'(7) This section is subject to any contrary provision made by or under this Act.'. [Mr. Watts.]

Clause 189
	  
	Service of notices on the Crown

Amendments made: No. 242, page 116, line 32, after 'on', insert 'or given or supplied to'.
	No. 243, page 116, line 33, after 'on', insert 'or given or supplied to'.
	No. 244, page 116, line 34, after 'service', insert ', giving or supply'.
	No. 245, page 116, line 35, at end insert
	'(3) For the purposes of this section the Crown includes
	(a) the Duchy of Lancaster;
	(b) the Duchy of Cornwall;
	(c) the Speaker of the House of Lords;
	(d) the Speaker of the House of Commons;
	(e) the Corporate Officer of the House of Lords;
	(f) the Corporate Officer of the House of Commons.'. [Mr. Watts.]

Clause 190
	  
	Orders and regulations

Amendments made: No. 247, page 117, line 10, after '145(1)', insert
	', [Power to make provision in relation to Wales](5)'.
	No. 248, page 117, line 11, after '134(3)', insert
	', [Power to make provision in relation to Wales](5)'. [Mr. Watts.]

Clause 193
	  
	Interpretation

Amendments made: No. 249, page 117, line 32, at end insert
	'alteration, in relation to a highway, includes stopping up the highway or diverting, improving, raising or lowering it;'.
	No. 250, page 118, line 20, leave out 'has the same meaning as in' and insert
	'and harbour authority have the meanings given by'.
	No. 251, page 118, line 25, at end insert
	'improvement, in relation to a highway, has the meaning given by section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980;'.
	No. 252, page 118, line 29, leave out from 'to' to end of line 31 and insert
	'Part 7 must be read in accordance with section [Interpretation: land and rights over land].
	No. 253, page 119, line 10, leave out 'or proposed highway'.
	No. 254, page 119, line 15, leave out 'or proposed highway'.
	No. 255, page 119, line 23, at end insert
	'(2) A reference in this Act to a right over land includes a reference to a right to do, or to place and maintain, anything in, on or under land or in the air-space above its surface.'.
	No. 256, page 119, line 23, at end insert
	'(2) Subsection (3) applies to the question of which parts of waters up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea
	(a) are adjacent to Wales (and, in consequence, are not adjacent to England), or
	(b) are not adjacent to Wales (and, in consequence, are adjacent to England).
	(3) The question is to be determined by reference to an order or Order in Council made under or by virtue of section 158(3) or (4) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (apportionment of sea areas) if, or to the extent that, the order or Order in Council is expressed to apply
	(a) by virtue of this subsection, for the purposes of this Act, or
	(b) if no provision has been made by virtue of paragraph (a), for the general or residual purposes of that Act.
	(4) Subsection (5) applies to the question of which parts of waters up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea
	(a) are adjacent to Scotland (and, in consequence, are not adjacent to England), or
	(b) are not adjacent to Scotland (and, in consequence, are adjacent to England).
	(5) The question is to be determined by reference to an Order in Council made under section 126(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 if, or to the extent that, the Order in Council is expressed to apply
	(a) by virtue of this subsection, for the purposes of this Act, or
	(b) if no provision has been made by virtue of paragraph (a), for the general or residual purposes of that Act.'. [Mr. Watts.]

Clause 194
	  
	Application of Act to Scotland: modifications

Amendments made: No. 257, page 119, line 25, leave out 'following modifications' and insert
	'modifications set out in Schedule [Application of Act to Scotland: modifications]'.
	No. 258, page 119, line 27, leave out subsections (2) to (13). [ Mr. Watts .]

Clause 195
	  
	Supplementary and consequential provision

Amendment made: No. 259, page 121, line 16, at end insert
	'(6) In this section any reference to an Act (other than this Act) includes a reference to an Act of the Scottish Parliament.'. [Mr. Watts.]

Clause 198
	  
	Extent

Amendment made: No. 260, page 121, line 31, leave out 'section 165' and insert
	'sections 165, 166, [Power to make provision in relation to Wales] and [Wales: transitional provision in relation to blighted land]'. [Mr. Watts.]

Clause 199
	  
	Commencement

Amendments made: No. 262, page 122, line 5, at end insert
	'(za) the provisions of Parts 1 to 8 which
	(i) confer power to make orders (other than orders granting development consent), regulations or rules, or
	(ii) make provision about what is (or is not) permitted to be done, or what is required to be done, in the exercise of any such power;'.
	No. 263, page 122, line 7, at end insert
	'(1A) Nothing in subsection (1)(za) affects the operation of section 13 of the Interpretation Act 1978 in relation to this Act.'.
	No. 264, page 122, line 13, leave out from '153' to the end and insert
	'[Power to decline to determine applications: amendments], 160, 163(1) and (3), 164, 165, 169 to 172;
	(aa) paragraphs 1, 2(1) and (2), 3(1), (2) and (4) and 4 to 6 of Schedule [Power to decline to determine applications: amendments];
	(ab) Schedules 3 and 6;'.
	No. 265, page 122, line 21, at end insert
	'(4A) Section [Wales: transitional provision in relation to blighted land] comes into force in accordance with subsection (5) of that section.'.
	No. 266, page 122, line 22, leave out 'Section 173 comes' and insert
	'Sections 166(2) to (5), 173, [Power to make provision in relation to Wales] and [Community Infrastructure Levy: repeals] (together with related entries in Schedule 7), and paragraph 7 of Schedule [Power to decline to determine applications: amendments], come'. [Mr. Watts.]

New Schedule 1
	  
	'Examination of applications by Secretary of State

Examination of matters by Commission: procedure
	1 (1) This paragraph applies if
	(a) the Secretary of State gives a direction under section 103(1) in relation to an application, and
	(b) for the purpose of the examination of the application under section [Effect of intervention](2)(a), the Secretary of State gives a direction under section [Effect of intervention](3)(a) for specified matters to be examined by the Commission.
	(2) The Commission must secure that
	(a) an examination of the specified matters is conducted by a Panel or a single Commissioner, and
	(b) a report is made by the Panel or Commissioner to the Secretary of State setting out the Panel or Commissioner's findings and conclusions on those matters.
	(3) The Panel or single Commissioner must
	(a) complete the examination under sub-paragraph (2)(a) by the end of the period specified by the Secretary of State, and
	(b) report under sub-paragraph (2)(b) by the end of the period specified by the Secretary of State.
	(4) The Secretary of State may direct that things done in connection with the examination of the application under Chapter 2 or 3 of Part 6 are to be treated as done in connection with the examination under sub-paragraph (2)(a).
	(5) The following provisions of Part 6 apply in relation to the specified matters as if for references to an application for an order granting development consent there were substituted references to the specified matters 
	(a) in Chapter 1, sections 56(2) to (5), 57 and 58;
	(b) in Chapter 2, sections 59 (except subsection (1)(a)), 60 to 68, 69(2) to (4) and 70 to 72;
	(c) in Chapter 3, sections 73 (except subsection (1)(a)), 74 to 77, and 78 (except subsection (2)(a));
	(d) in Chapter 4, sections 81 to 91 and 93 to 95.
	(6) As applied by sub-paragraph (5), those provisions apply
	(a) with any necessary modifications, and
	(b) with such other modifications as may be prescribed.
	 Examination of matters by Secretary of State: procedure
	2 (1) This paragraph applies if
	(a) the Secretary of State gives a direction under section 103(1) in relation to an application, and
	(b) for the purpose of the examination of the application under section [Effect of intervention](2)(a), the Secretary of State is to conduct an examination of any matters under section [Effect of intervention](3)(b).
	(2) It is for the Secretary of State to decide how to conduct the examination under section [Effect of intervention](3)(b).
	(3) The Secretary of State may in particular decide that all or part of the examination is to take the form of
	(a) consideration of written representations;
	(b) consideration of oral representations at a hearing.
	(4) The Secretary of State may treat things done in connection with the examination of the application under Chapter 2 or 3 of Part 6 as done in connection with the examination under section [Effect of intervention](3)(b).
	(5) Sub-paragraph (6) applies if
	(a) the direction under section 103(1) is given by virtue of section [Intervention: defence and national security],
	(b) the Secretary of State has decided that all or part of the examination is to take the form of consideration of oral representations at a hearing, and
	(c) the Secretary of State is satisfied that
	(i) the making of particular representations at the hearing would be likely to result in the disclosure of information as to defence or national security, and
	(ii) the public disclosure of that information would be contrary to the national interest.
	(6) The Secretary of State may direct that representations of a specified description may be made only to persons of a specified description (instead of being made in public).
	(7) Specified means specified in the direction.
	(8) The Secretary of State's powers under sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) are subject to
	(a) sub-paragraphs (5) to (7), and
	(b) any rules made under paragraph 3.
	(9) In this paragraph representation includes evidence.
	 Rules
	3 (1) The Lord Chancellor or (if sub-paragraph (2) applies) the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council, may make rules regulating the procedure to be followed in connection with the Secretary of State's examination of an application under section [Effect of intervention].
	(2) This sub-paragraph applies if the development to which the application relates (or part of the development) is the construction of an oil or gas cross-country pipe-line
	(a) one end of which is in England or Wales, and
	(b) the other end of which is in Scotland.
	(3) Rules under sub-paragraph (1) may make provision for or in connection with authorising the Secretary of State, alone or with others, to enter onto land, including land owned or occupied otherwise than by the applicant, for the purpose of inspecting the land as part of the Secretary of State's examination.
	(4) Rules under sub-paragraph (1) may regulate procedure in connection with matters preparatory to the Secretary of State's examination, and in connection with matters subsequent to the examination, as well as in connection with the conduct of the examination.
	(5) Power under this paragraph to make rules includes power to make different provision for different purposes.
	(6) Power under this paragraph to make rules is exercisable by statutory instrument.
	(7) A statutory instrument containing rules under this paragraph is subject to annulment pursuant to a resolution of either House of Parliament.
	 Appointed representatives
	4 (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if the Secretary of State gives a direction under paragraph 2(6) for representations of a specified description to be made only to persons of a specified description (instead of being made in public).
	(2) The Attorney General or (where the representations are to be made in Scotland) the Advocate General for Scotland may appoint a person (an appointed representative) to represent the interests of an interested party who (by virtue of the direction) is prevented from being present when the representations are made.
	(3) Interested party means a person who is an interested party in relation to the application for the purposes of Chapter 4 of Part 6 (see section 95).
	(4) Rules under paragraph 3 may make provision as to the functions of an appointed representative.
	(5) The Secretary of State may direct a person (a responsible person) to pay the fees and expenses of an appointed representative, if the Secretary of State thinks that the responsible person is interested in the hearing in relation to any representations that are the subject of the direction under paragraph 2(6).
	(6) If the Secretary of State gives a direction under sub-paragraph (5) and the appointed representative and the responsible person are unable to agree the amount of the fees and expenses, the amount must be determined by the Secretary of State.
	(7) The Secretary of State must cause the amount agreed between the appointed representative and the responsible person, or determined by the Secretary of State, to be certified.
	(8) An amount so certified is recoverable from the responsible person as a civil debt.'. [Mr. Watts.]
	 Brought up, read  the  First time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 2
	  
	'Correction of errors in development consent decisions

Correction of errors
	1 (1) This paragraph applies if
	(a) the decision-maker makes an order granting development consent, or refuses development consent, and
	(b) the decision document contains a correctable error.
	(2) The decision document is
	(a) in the case of an order granting development consent, the order;
	(b) in the case of a refusal of development consent, the document recording the refusal.
	(3) A correctable error is an error or omission which
	(a) is in a part of the decision document which records the decision, and
	(b) is not part of the statement of reasons for the decision.
	(4) The appropriate authority may correct the error or omission if (but only if), the conditions in sub-paragraphs (5) and (7) are met.
	This is subject to sub-paragraph (8).
	(5) The condition is that, before the end of the relevant period
	(a) the appropriate authority receives a written request to correct the error or omission from any person, or
	(b) the appropriate authority sends a statement in writing to the applicant which explains the error or omission and states that the appropriate authority is considering making the correction.
	(6) The relevant period is
	(a) if the decision document is an order granting development consent, the period specified in section 108(1)(b);
	(b) if the decision document is the document recording a refusal of development consent, the period specified in section 108(2)(b).
	(7) The condition is that the appropriate authority informs each relevant local planning authority that the request mentioned in sub-paragraph (5)(a) has been received or the statement mentioned in sub-paragraph (5)(b) has been sent (as the case may be).
	(8) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (4) may not be exercised in relation to provision included in an order granting development consent by virtue of any of paragraphs 27 to 30 of Schedule [Provision relating to, or to matters ancillary to, development] (deemed consent under Coast Protection Act 1949 and deemed licences under Food and Environment Protection Act 1985).
	 Correction notice
	2 (1) If paragraph 1(5)(a) or (b) applies the appropriate authority must issue a notice in writing (a correction notice) which
	(a) specifies the correction of the error or omission, or
	(b) gives notice of the decision not to correct the error or omission.
	(2) The appropriate authority must issue the correction notice as soon as practicable after making the correction or deciding not to make the correction.
	(3) The appropriate authority must give the correction notice to
	(a) the applicant,
	(b) each person who was an interested party in relation to the application for the order granting development consent for the purposes of Chapter 4 of Part 6 (see section 95),
	(c) each relevant local planning authority, and
	(d) if the correction was requested by any other person, that person.
	(4) The Secretary of State may by order specify any other person or description of person to whom a correction notice must be given.
	 Effect of a correction
	3 (1) If a correction is made in pursuance of paragraph 1
	(a) the original decision and the decision document containing it continue in force, and
	(b) the decision document is treated as corrected as specified in the correction notice issued under paragraph 2 with effect from the date the correction notice is issued.
	(2) If a correction is not made
	(a) the original decision continues to have full force and effect, and
	(b) nothing in this Schedule affects anything done in pursuance of or in respect of the original decision.
	(3) The original decision means the decision to
	(a) make an order granting development consent, or
	(b) refuse development consent.
	 Interpretation
	4 In this Schedule
	applicant means the person who applied for the order granting development consent to which the decision relates;
	appropriate authority means
	(d) the Commission where the decision-maker is a Panel or the Council;(e) the Secretary of State where the decision-maker is the Secretary of State;
	relevant local planning authority means a local planning authority for all or any part of the area in which the land to which the decision relates is situated.'. [Mr. Watts.]
	 Brought up, read  the  First time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 3
	  
	'Provision relating to, or to matters ancillary to, development
	  
	Part 1
	  
	The Matters

1 The acquisition of land, compulsorily or by agreement.
	2 The creation, suspension or extinguishment of, or interference with, interests in or rights over land (including rights of navigation over water), compulsorily or by agreement.
	3 The abrogation or modification of agreements relating to land.
	4 Carrying out specified excavation, mining, quarrying or boring operations in a specified area.
	5 The operation of a generating station.
	6 Keeping electric lines installed above ground.
	7 The use of underground gas storage facilities.
	8 The sale, exchange or appropriation of Green Belt land.
	9 Freeing land from any restriction imposed on it by or under the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938 (c. xciii), or by a covenant or other agreement entered into for the purposes of that Act.
	10 The protection of the property or interests of any person.
	11 The imposition or exclusion of obligations or liability in respect of acts or omissions.
	12 Carrying out surveys or taking soil samples.
	13 Cutting down, uprooting, topping or lopping trees or shrubs or cutting back their roots.
	14 The removal, disposal or re-siting of apparatus.
	15 Carrying out civil engineering or other works.
	16 The diversion of navigable or non-navigable watercourses.
	17 The stopping up or diversion of highways.
	18 Charging tolls, fares and other charges.
	19 The designation of a highway as a trunk road or special road.
	20 The specification of the classes of traffic authorised to use a highway.
	21 The appropriation of a highway for which the person proposing to construct or improve a highway is the highway authority.
	22 The transfer to the person proposing to construct or improve a highway of a highway for which that person is not the highway authority.
	23 The specification of the highway authority for a highway.
	24 The operation and maintenance of a transport system.
	25 Entering into an agreement for the provision of police services.
	26 The discharge of water into inland waters or underground strata.
	27 Deeming consent under section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949 (c. 74) to have been given by the Secretary of State for operations specified in the order and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order.
	28 Deeming any such conditions to have been imposed by the Secretary of State under that section.
	29 Deeming a licence under Part 2 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (c. 48) to have been issued by a specified licensing authority for operations specified in the order and subject to such provisions as may be specified in the order.
	30 Deeming any such provisions to have been included in the licence by the specified licensing authority by virtue of that Act.
	31 The creation of a harbour authority.
	32 Changing the powers and duties of a harbour authority.
	33 The transfer of property, rights, liabilities, or functions.
	34 The transfer, leasing, suspension, discontinuance and revival of undertakings.
	35 The payment of contributions.
	36 The payment of compensation.
	37 The submission of disputes to arbitration.
	38 The alteration of borrowing limits.

Part 2
	  
	Interpretation

1 (1) This paragraph applies for the purposes of this Schedule.
	(2) Transport system means any of the following
	(a) a railway,
	(b) a tramway,
	(c) a trolley vehicle system,
	(d) a system using a mode of guided transport prescribed by order under section 2 of the Transport and Works Act 1992.
	(3) Maintenance, in relation to a transport system, includes the inspection, repair, adjustment, alteration, removal, reconstruction or replacement of the system.
	(4) The following terms have the meanings given by section 67(1) (interpretation) of the Transport and Works Act 1992
	guided transport,
	tramway,
	trolley vehicle system.'. [Mr. Watts.]
	 Brought up, read  the  First time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 4
	  
	'Changes to, and revocation of, orders granting development consent

Preliminary
	1 (1) This paragraph applies for the purposes of this Schedule.
	(2) The applicant, in relation to a development consent order, means the person who applied for the order.
	(3) A successor in title of the applicant means a person who
	(a) derives title to the land from the applicant (whether directly or indirectly), and
	(b) has an interest in the land.
	(4) The appropriate authority means
	(a) in a case where a Panel or the Council made the order granting development consent, the Commission;
	(b) in a case where the Secretary of State made the order, the Secretary of State.
	(5) Development consent order means an order granting development consent.
	(6) The land, in relation to a development consent order, means the land to which the order relates or any part of that land.
	 Non-material changes
	2 (1) The appropriate authority may make a change to a development consent order if it is satisfied that the change is not material.
	This is subject to sub-paragraph (10).
	(2) In deciding whether a change is material, the appropriate authority must have regard to the effect of the change, together with any previous changes made under this paragraph, on the development consent order as originally made.
	(3) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (1) includes power
	(a) to impose new requirements in connection with the development for which consent is granted by the development consent order;
	(b) to remove or alter existing requirements.
	(4) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (1) may be exercised only on an application made to the Commission by or on behalf of
	(a) the applicant or a successor in title of the applicant,
	(b) a person with an interest in the land, or
	(c) any other person for whose benefit the development consent order has effect.
	(5) An application under sub-paragraph (4) must be made in the prescribed form and manner.
	(6) Sub-paragraph (7) applies in relation to an application under sub-paragraph (4) made by or on behalf of a person with an interest in some, but not all, of the land to which the development consent order relates.
	(7) The application may be made only in respect of so much of the order as affects the land in which the person has an interest.
	(8) The appropriate authority must comply with such requirements as may be prescribed as to consultation and publicity in relation to the exercise of the power conferred by sub-paragraph (1).
	(9) If a change is made to a development consent order under the power conferred by sub-paragraph (1)
	(a) the order continues in force,
	(b) the appropriate authority must give notice of the change to the order to such persons as may be prescribed, and
	(c) the change to the order takes effect from the date on which the notice is issued.
	(10) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (1) may not be exercised in relation to provision included in an order granting development consent by virtue of any of paragraphs 27 to 30 of Schedule [Provision relating to, or to matters ancillary to, development] (deemed consent under Coast Protection Act 1949 and deemed licences under Food and Environment Protection Act 1985).
	 Changes to, and revocation of, orders granting development consent
	3 (1) The appropriate authority may by order make a change to, or revoke, a development consent order.
	(2) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (1) may be exercised only in accordance with
	(a) the following provisions of this paragraph, and
	(b) paragraphs 4 and 5.
	(3) The power may be exercised without an application being made if the appropriate authority is satisfied that
	(a) the development consent order contains a significant error, and
	(b) it would not be appropriate for the error to be corrected by means of the power conferred by paragraph 1 of Schedule [Correction of errors in development consent decisions] or paragraph 2 of this Schedule.
	(4) The power may be exercised on an application made by or on behalf of
	(a) the applicant or a successor in title of the applicant,
	(b) a person with an interest in the land, or
	(c) any other person for whose benefit the development consent order has effect.
	(5) The power may be exercised on an application made by a local planning authority if the appropriate authority is satisfied that
	(a) the development consent order grants development consent for development on land all or part of which is in the local planning authority's area,
	(b) the development has begun but has been abandoned, and
	(c) the amenity of other land in the local planning authority's area or an adjoining area is adversely affected by the condition of the land.
	(6) Where the appropriate authority is the Commission, the power may be exercised on an application made by the Secretary of State if the Commission is satisfied that
	(a) if the development were carried out in accordance with the development consent order, there would be a contravention of Community law or any of the Convention rights, or
	(b) there are other exceptional circumstances that make it appropriate to exercise the power.
	(7) Where the appropriate authority is the Secretary of State, the power may be exercised without an application being made if the Secretary of State is satisfied that
	(a) if the development were carried out in accordance with the development consent order, there would be a contravention of Community law or any of the Convention rights, or
	(b) there are other exceptional circumstances that make it appropriate to exercise the power.
	(8) In this paragraph
	Community law means
	(f) all the rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the Community Treaties, and(g) all the remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or under the Community Treaties;
	the Convention rights has the same meaning as in the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42).
	 Changes to, and revocation of, orders: supplementary
	4 (1) An application under paragraph 3 must be
	(a) made in the prescribed form and manner, and
	(b) accompanied by information of a prescribed description.
	(2) Sub-paragraph (3) applies in relation to an application under paragraph 3(4) made by or on behalf of a person with an interest in some, but not all, of the land to which the development consent order relates.
	(3) The application may be made only in respect of so much of the order as affects the land in which the person has an interest.
	(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about
	(a) the procedure to be followed before an application under paragraph 3 is made;
	(b) the making of such an application;
	(c) the decision-making process in relation to the exercise of the power conferred by paragraph 3(1);
	(d) the making of the decision as to whether to exercise that power;
	(e) the effect of a decision to exercise that power.
	(5) Paragraphs (c) to (e) of sub-paragraph (4) apply in relation to the exercise of the power conferred by paragraph 3(1)
	(a) on an application under paragraph 3, or
	(b) on the initiative of the appropriate authority under paragraph 3(3) or (7).
	(6) If a development consent order is changed or revoked in the exercise of the power conferred by paragraph 3(1), the appropriate authority must give notice of the change or revocation to such persons as may be prescribed.
	5 (1) This paragraph applies in relation to the power conferred by paragraph 3(1) to make a change to, or revoke, a development consent order.
	(2) The power may not be exercised after the end of the period of 4 years beginning with the date on which the relevant development was substantially completed.
	(3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not prevent the exercise of the power
	(a) in relation to requirements imposed by the development consent order in connection with the relevant development, or
	(b) to revoke the development consent order.
	(4) The power includes power
	(a) to require the removal or alteration of buildings or works;
	(b) to require the discontinuance of a use of land;
	(c) to impose specified requirements in connection with the continuance of a use of land;
	(d) to impose new requirements in connection with the relevant development;
	(e) to remove or alter existing requirements.
	(5) Subject to sub-paragraph (4)(a), the exercise of the power does not affect any building or other operations carried out in pursuance of the development consent order before the power is exercised.
	(6) The power may not be exercised in relation to provision included in an order granting development consent by virtue of any of paragraphs 27 to 30 of Schedule [Provision relating to, or to matters ancillary to, development] (deemed consent under Coast Protection Act 1949 and deemed licences under Food and Environment Protection Act 1985).
	(7) The relevant development is the development for which consent is granted by the development consent order.
	 Compensation
	6 (1) This paragraph applies if
	(a) in exercise of the power conferred by paragraph 3, the appropriate authority makes a change to, or revokes, a development consent order,
	(b) the case in which the power is exercised is one falling within sub-paragraph (3), (6) or (7) of that paragraph,
	(c) on a claim for compensation under this paragraph it is shown that a person with an interest in the land, or for whose benefit the development consent order has effect
	(i) has incurred expenditure in carrying out work which is rendered abortive by the change or revocation, or
	(ii) has otherwise sustained loss or damage which is directly attributable to the change or revocation, and
	(d) the claim is made to the appropriate authority in the prescribed manner and before the end of the prescribed period.
	(2) Compensation in respect of the expenditure, loss or damage is payable to the person by
	(a) the appropriate authority, if the change or revocation is made in a case falling within paragraph 3(3);
	(b) the Secretary of State, if the change or revocation is made in a case falling within paragraph 3(6) or (7).
	(3) The reference in sub-paragraph (1)(c)(i) to expenditure incurred in carrying out any work includes a reference to expenditure incurred 
	(a) in the preparation of plans for the purposes of the work, or
	(b) on other similar matters preparatory to carrying out the work.
	(4) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), no compensation is to be paid under this paragraph
	(a) in respect of any work carried out before the development consent order was made, or
	(b) in respect of any other loss or damage arising out of anything done or omitted to be done before the development consent order was made (other than loss or damage consisting of depreciation of the value of an interest in land).
	(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the assessment of compensation payable under this paragraph.
	(6) The regulations may in particular include provision
	(a) for the reference of disputes about compensation for depreciation to, and the determination of such disputes by, the Lands Tribunal, the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, the First-tier Tribunal or the Upper Tribunal;
	(b) applying, with or without modifications, a provision of or made under an Act.
	7 (1) In this paragraph compensation for depreciation means compensation payable under paragraph 6 in respect of loss or damage consisting of depreciation of the value of an interest in land.
	(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the apportionment of compensation for depreciation between different parts of the land to which the claim for the compensation relates.
	(3) The regulations may in particular include provision about
	(a) who is to make an apportionment;
	(b) the persons to whom notice of an apportionment is to be given;
	(c) how an apportionment is to be made;
	(d) the reference of disputes about an apportionment to, and the determination of such disputes by, the Lands Tribunal, the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, the First-tier Tribunal or the Upper Tribunal.
	(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for, and in connection with, the giving of notice of compensation for depreciation.
	(5) The regulations may in particular include provision about
	(a) the persons to whom notice of compensation for depreciation is to be given;
	(b) the status of such a notice;
	(c) the registration of such a notice.'. [Mr. Watts.]
	 Brought up, read  the  First time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 5
	  
	'Power to decline to determine applications: amendments

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8)
	1 TCPA 1990 is amended as follows.
	2 (1) Section 70A (power of local planning authority to decline to determine subsequent application) is amended as follows.
	(2) At the end of subsection (4)(b) insert or, if there has been such an appeal, it has been withdrawn.
	(3) After subsection (4) insert
	(4A) A local planning authority in England may also decline to determine a relevant application if
	(a) the condition in subsection (4B) is satisfied, and
	(b) the authority think there has been no significant change in the relevant considerations since the relevant event.
	(4B) The condition is that
	(a) in the period of two years ending with the date on which the application mentioned in subsection (4A) is received the Secretary of State has refused a similar application,
	(b) the similar application was an application deemed to have been made by section 177(5), and
	(c) the land to which the application mentioned in subsection (4A) and the similar application relate is in England.
	(4) In subsection (7)(a) for and (4) substitute , (4) and (4B).
	3 (1) Section 70B (power of local planning authority to decline to determine overlapping application) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1) after which is insert 
	(a) made on the same day as a similar application, or
	(b) .
	(3) After subsection (4) insert
	(4A) A local planning authority in England may also decline to determine an application for planning permission for the development of any land in England which is made at a time when the condition in subsection (4B) applies in relation to a similar application.
	(4B) The condition is that
	(a) a similar application is under consideration by the Secretary of State,
	(b) the similar application is an application deemed to have been made by section 177(5), and
	(c) the Secretary of State has not issued his decision.
	(4) After subsection (6) insert
	(7) If a local planning authority exercise their power under subsection (1)(a) to decline to determine an application made on the same day as a similar application, they may not also exercise that power to decline to determine the similar application.
	 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (c. 9)
	4 The Listed Buildings Act is amended as follows.
	5 In section 81A (power of local planning authority to decline to determine subsequent application) at the end of subsection (4)(b) insert or, if there has been such an appeal, it has been withdrawn.
	6 (1) Section 81B (power of local planning authority to decline to determine overlapping application) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1) after which is insert 
	(a) made on the same day as a similar application, or
	(b) .
	(3) After subsection (4) insert
	(4A) If a local planning authority exercise their power under subsection (1)(a) to decline to determine an application made on the same day as a similar application, they may not also exercise that power to decline to determine the similar application.
	 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (c. 5)
	7 In section 121 of PCPA 2004 (commencement) after subsection (3) insert
	(3A) Subsections (1) and (2) are subject to subsection (3B).
	(3B) Section 43 (power to decline to determine applications) (so far as not in force on the day on which paragraph 7 of Schedule [Power to decline to determine applications: amendments] of the Planning Act 2008 comes into force) comes into force on such day as may be appointed by order made by
	(a) the Secretary of State in relation to England;
	(b) the Welsh Ministers in relation to Wales.'. [Mr. Watts.]
	 Brought up, read  the  First time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 7
	  
	'Application of Act to Scotland: modifications

8 Section 5(8) applies as if the reference to Part 11 of TCPA 1990 were a reference to Part 10 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (c. 8).
	9 Section 13 applies as if
	(a) in subsection (1)
	(i) the words any of the following were omitted, and
	(ii) paragraphs (a) to (e) and (g) to (o) were omitted, and
	(b) in subsection (2) for sections 14 to 28 there were substituted section 19.
	10 Section 30 applies as if
	(a) in subsection (1)
	(i) the reference to TCPA 1990 were a reference to section 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (c. 8), and
	(ii) the words This is subject to subsections (2) and (3). were omitted, and
	(b) subsections (2) to (4) were omitted.
	11 Section 31 applies as if
	(a) in subsection (1)
	(i) for none there were substituted neither, and
	(ii) paragraphs (b) and (c) and (e) to (k) were omitted, and
	(b) subsections (2) to (4) were omitted.
	12 Section 42 applies as if
	(a) in subsection (2)(b), the words from or to the end were omitted,
	(b) in subsection (3), references to section 5(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (c. 56) were references to section 17 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 (c. 19), and
	(c) in subsection (5)
	(i) for paragraph (a) there were substituted
	(a) a claim arising by virtue of paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947 (c. 42), and
	(ii) in paragraph (b), the reference to Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (c. 26) were a reference to Part 1 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 (c. 56).
	13 Section 49 applies as if
	(a) in subsection (2)(c), the words from or to the end were omitted,
	(b) in subsection (3)(b)
	(i) the reference to a freeholder were a reference to an owner, and
	(ii) the reference to a mortgagee were a reference to a heritable creditor, and
	(c) in subsection (11), references to section 5(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (c. 56) were references to section 17 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 (c. 19).
	14 Section 50 applies as if
	(a) in subsection (7), the reference to chattels were a reference to moveable property,
	(b) in subsection (8), the reference to the Lands Tribunal were a reference to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, and
	(c) in subsection (11), in the definition of statutory undertakers, the reference to Part 11 of TCPA 1990 were a reference to Part 10 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (c. 8).
	15 Section 54 applies as if
	(a) in subsection (2)(b), the words from or to the end were omitted,
	(b) in subsection (3), references to section 5(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (c. 56) were references to section 17 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 (c. 19), and
	(c) in subsection (5)
	(i) for paragraph (a) there were substituted
	(a) a claim arising by virtue of paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947 (c. 42), and
	(ii) in paragraph (b), the reference to Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (c. 26) were a reference to Part 1 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 (c. 56).
	16 Section 55 applies as if
	(a) for subsection (6) there were substituted
	(6) Summary proceedings relating to an offence under this section may be commenced regardless of when the contravention occurred., and
	(b) in subsection (7), the reference to section 127 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43) were a reference to section 136 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 46).
	17 Section 109(7) applies as if the references to an Act included references to an Act of the Scottish Parliament.
	18 Section 114(6) applies as if, for the definition of statutory undertakers there were substituted
	statutory undertakers has the meaning given by section 214 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (c. 8) and also includes the undertakers
	(d) which are deemed to be statutory undertakers for the purposes of that Act, by virtue of another enactment;(e) which are statutory undertakers for the purposes of paragraphs 9 and 10 of the First Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947 (c. 42) (see paragraph 10A of that Schedule).
	19 Section 115(5) applies as if
	(a) in the definition of local authority, the reference to section 7(1) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (c. 67) were a reference to section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 (c. 39), and
	(b) for the definition of statutory undertakers there were substituted
	statutory undertakers has the meaning given by section 214 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (c. 8) and also includes the undertakers
	(f) which are deemed to be statutory undertakers for the purposes of that Act, by virtue of another enactment;(g) which are statutory undertakers for the purposes of paragraphs 9 and 10 of the First Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947 (c. 42) (see paragraph 10A of that Schedule);.
	20 Section 116(2) applies as if
	(a) in the definition of local authority, the reference to section 17(4) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (c. 67) were a reference to section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 (c. 39), and
	(b) for the definition of statutory undertakers there were substituted
	 statutory undertakers has the meaning given by section 214 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (c. 8) and also includes the undertakers which are deemed to be statutory undertakers for the purposes of that Act, by virtue of another enactment;.
	21 Section 117 applies as if
	(a) in subsection (4), the references to section 21 of the National Trust Act 1907 (c.cxxxvi) and section 8 of the National Trust Act 1939 (c. 1xxxvi) were references to section 22 of the Order confirmed by the National Trust for Scotland Order Confirmation Act 1935 (c. ii), and
	(b) in subsection (5), for the definition of the National Trust there were substituted
	the National Trust means the National Trust for Scotland for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty incorporated by the Order confirmed by the National Trust for Scotland Order Confirmation Act 1935 (c. ii);.
	22 Section 118 applies as if
	(a) in subsection (1), for , open space or fuel or field garden allotment there were substituted or open space, and
	(b) in subsection (8), for the words from common to 1981 there were substituted
	common includes any town or village green;
	open space means any land laid out as a public garden, or used for the purposes of public recreation, or land which is a disused burial ground;.
	23 Section 119 applies as if
	(a) in subsection (1), for , open space or fuel or field garden allotment there were substituted or open space, and
	(b) in subsection (9), for the words from common to 1981 there were substituted
	common and open space have the same meanings as in section 118 (as modified by paragraph 15);.
	24 Section 121 applies as if
	(a) for subsection (4) there were substituted
	(4) This subsection applies to
	(a) an owner, lessee, tenant (whatever the tenancy period) or occupier of the order land,
	(b) a person known by the prospective purchaser (after diligent inquiry)
	(i) to be interested in the order land, or
	(ii) to have power to sell and convey the order land,
	(c) a person who, if the order were fully implemented, the prospective purchaser thinks would or might be entitled
	(i) as a result of the implementing of the order,
	(ii) as a result of the order's having been implemented, or
	(iii) as a result of use of the order land once the order has been implemented,
	to make a relevant claim.
	(4A) In subsection (4)(c) relevant claim means a claim arising by virtue of paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947 (c. 42).
	(4B) An expression that appears in subsection (4)(b) of this section and also in section 17 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 (c. 19) has in subsection (4)(b) the meaning that it has in section 17 of that Act., and
	(b) in subsection (7)(c) the words only in accordance with section 108 were omitted.
	25 Section [Public rights of way: statutory undertakers' apparatus etc.](7) applies as if the reference to Part 11 of TCPA 1990 were a reference to Part 10 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (c. 8).
	26 Section 137 applies as if the references to a justice of the peace were references to a sheriff.
	27 Section 138 applies as if
	(a) in subsection (4), the reference to chattels were a reference to moveable property,
	(b) in subsection (5), the reference to the Lands Tribunal were a reference to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, and
	(c) in subsection (6), the reference to sections 2 and 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (c. 33) were a reference to sections 9 and 11 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 (c. 51).
	28 Section 144 applies as if
	(a) the references to an injunction were references to an interdict, and
	(b) in subsection (4), the references to the High Court and a county court were references to the Court of Session and the sheriff.
	29 Section 187(5) applies as if the reference to section 233 of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) were a reference to section 192 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (c. 65).
	30 Section 193 applies as if
	(a) for the definition of building there were substituted
	building has the meaning given by section 277(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (c. 8);,
	(b) for the definition of land there were substituted
	land includes land covered with water and any building (as defined in section 277(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (c. 8)) and in relation to Part 7 must be read in accordance with section [Interpretation: land and rights over land];,
	(c) for the definition of local planning authority there were substituted
	local planning authority means a planning authority within the meaning of section 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (c. 8);,
	(d) in the definition of planning permission, the reference to Part 3 of TCPA 1990 were a reference to Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (c. 8), and
	(e) in the definition of use, the reference to section 336(1) of TCPA 1990 were a reference to section 277(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (c. 8).
	31 Part 1 of Schedule [Provision relating to, or to matters ancillary to, development] applies as if paragraphs 4 to 6, 8, 9, 16 to 32 and 38 were omitted.'. [Mr. Watts.]
	 Brought up, read the First time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 1
	  
	The Infrastructure Planning Commission

Amendments made: No. 267, page 125, line 41, at end insert
	'9A (1) This paragraph applies where an application referred to the Council under section 79 relates to land in Wales (even if the application also relates to land not in Wales).
	(2) A person appointing Commissioners under paragraph 7(1) as ordinary members of the Council for the purpose of deciding the application must do so with a view to securing that, if reasonably practicable, at least one of the members of the Council for that purpose is
	(a) a Commissioner who was nominated for appointment as a Commissioner by the Welsh Ministers, or
	(b) a Commissioner who is within sub-paragraph (3).
	(3) A Commissioner is within this sub-paragraph if, when appointed to be a member of the Council, the Commissioner is one notified to the Commission by the Welsh Ministers as being a Commissioner who should be treated for the purposes of this paragraph as being a Commissioner within sub-paragraph (2)(a).'.
	No. 268, page 126, line 26, leave out from 'under' to end and insert 'any of the following provisions
	section 35(4) or (5);
	section 40(2);
	section 49;
	section 50;
	section 52;
	section 102(4);
	section 122(6)(a);
	section [Public rights of way: statutory undertakers' apparatus](5);
	in Schedule [Examination of applications by Secretary of State], paragraph 1(2);
	in Schedule [Correction of errors in development consent decisions], paragraphs 1 and 2(1);
	in Schedule [Changes to, and revocation of, orders granting development consent], paragraphs 2, 3 and 4.'.
	No. 269, page 127, line 7, after 'land', insert
	'or of an interest in or right over land'. [Mr. Watts.]

Schedule 2
	  
	Amendments consequential on development consent regime

Amendments made: No. 270, page 130, leave out lines 5 to 13.
	No. 271, page 131, line 2, leave out from 'to' to end of line 4 and insert
	'(a) section 31(2) of the Planning Act 2008 (exclusion of powers to authorise development);
	(b) section 109(8B) of that Act (exclusion of power to include ancillary provision in orders).'.
	No. 272, page 131, line 6, leave out from second 'to' to end of line 8 and insert
	'(a) section 31(2) of the Planning Act 2008 (exclusion of powers to authorise development);
	(b) section 109(8B) of that Act (exclusion of power to include ancillary provision in orders).'.
	No. 273, page 131, line 11, leave out from '13' to end of line 19 and insert
	'In section 4 (storage authorisation orders) after subsection (2) insert
	(2A) So far as relating to development within section 16(2), (3) or (5) of the Planning Act 2008
	(a) subsection (1) is subject to section 31(2) of that Act (exclusion of powers to authorise development for which development consent required), and
	(b) subsection (2) is subject to section 31(1) of that Act (exclusion of requirement for other consents for development for which development consent required).
	(2B) So far as relating to the use of strata for the storage of gas, subsections (1) and (2) are subject to section 109(8B) of the Planning Act 2008 (exclusion of power to include ancillary provision in orders).'.
	No. 274, page 132, line 2, after 'consent', insert 'under the Planning Act 2008'.
	No. 275, page 134, line 31, leave out paragraph 37.
	No. 276, page 136, line 32, leave out from 'to' to end of line 34 and insert
	'(a) section 31(2) of the Planning Act 2008 (exclusion of powers to authorise development);
	(b) section 109(8B) of that Act (exclusion of power to include ancillary provision in orders).'.
	No. 277, page 136, line 36, leave out from 'to' to end of line 38 and insert
	'(a) section 31(2) of the Planning Act 2008 (exclusion of powers to authorise development);
	(b) section 109(8B) of that Act (exclusion of power to include ancillary provision in orders).'.
	No. 278, page 136, line 38, at end insert
	 'Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (c. 8)
	56 The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 is amended as follows.
	57 In section 28 (planning permission required for development) after subsection (1) insert
	(1A) Subsection (1) is subject to section 31(1) of the Planning Act 2008 (exclusion of requirement for planning permission etc. for development for which development consent required).
	58 In section 160(6) (tree preservation orders: exemptions) after paragraph (b) insert
	(ba) it is authorised by an order granting development consent,
	59 (1) Section 172 (preservation of trees in conservation areas) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (1) insert
	(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply so far as the act in question is authorised by an order granting development consent.
	(3) After subsection (5) insert
	(5A) Subsection (5) does not apply so far as the act in question is authorised by an order granting development consent.
	60 In section 277(1) (interpretation) at the appropriate place insert
	development consent means development consent under the Planning Act 2008;
	 Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Scotland) Act 1997 (c. 10)
	61 The Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Scotland) Act 1997 is amended as follows.
	62 In section 7(2)(c) (determination of applications for hazardous substances consent: material considerations) after planning permission insert or development consent.
	63 In section 8(1) (conditions on grant of hazardous substances consent) after planning permission insert or development consent.
	64 (1) Section 10 (deemed hazardous substances consent: government authorisation) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (2A) insert
	(2B) On making an order granting development consent in respect of development that would involve the presence of a hazardous substance in circumstances requiring hazardous substances consent, the person making the order may direct that hazardous substances consent shall be deemed to be granted, subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in the direction.
	(3) For subsection (3) substitute
	(3) Before giving a direction under any of subsections (1) to (2B), the person having power to give the direction must consult the Health and Safety Commission.
	(4) In subsection (6)
	(a) for the words from government to Ministers substitute person, and
	(b) after directions insert given by the person.
	65 In section 12(2)(b) (power to revoke or modify hazardous substances consent)
	(a) after planning permission insert or development consent, and
	(b) after the permission insert or development consent.
	66 In section 38(1) (interpretation) at the appropriate place insert
	development consent means development consent under the Planning Act 2008,.'.
	No. 279, page 136, line 38, at end insert
	 'Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (c.)
	In section 13(6) of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (power of Secretary of State to make designation orders) in the definition of permitted purposes at the end insert , and
	(d) Part 8 of the Planning Act 2008,.  [Mr. Watts.]

Schedule 3
	  
	Tree preservation orders: further amendments

Amendments made: No. 280, page 137, line 2, at end insert
	 'Forestry Act 1967 (c. 10)
	A1 The Forestry Act 1967 is amended as follows.
	A2 (1) Section 15 (trees subject to preservation orders under Planning Acts) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1) for consent under the order substitute relevant consent.
	(3) After subsection (1) insert
	(1A) In subsection (1) relevant consent means
	(a) in the case of trees in England and Wales, consent under tree preservation regulations;
	(b) in the case of trees in Scotland, consent under the tree preservation order.
	(4) In subsection (5) for the words from application to thereunder substitute relevant application shall be entertained.
	(5) After subsection (5) insert
	(5A) In subsection (5) relevant application means
	(a) in the case of trees in England and Wales, an application under tree preservation regulations for consent under the regulations;
	(b) in the case of trees in Scotland, an application under a tree preservation order for consent under the order.
	A3 In section 18 (felling directions), in subsection (5) for the words from shall to the end substitute shall be sufficient authority for the felling, notwithstanding anything in
	(a) tree preservation regulations, in the case of trees in England or Wales;
	(b) the tree preservation order, in the case of trees in Scotland.
	A4 In section 21 (courses open to person adversely affected by felling direction), in subsection (7), after a tree preservation order insert , or under tree preservation regulations,.
	A5 In section 35 (interpretation of Part 2) at the appropriate place insert
	tree preservation regulations means regulations made under section 202A(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;.
	A6 (1) Schedule 3 (proceedings under Town and Country Planning Acts in relation to tree preservation orders) is amended as follows.
	(2) In paragraph 2
	(a) for under the said Acts substitute under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997,
	(b) omit the words from section 77 to (for Scotland),
	(c) for provisions of the said Acts substitute provisions of that Act, and
	(d) omit the said section 77 or (for Scotland).
	(3) After paragraph 2 insert
	2A (1) Where under section 15(2)(a) an application, on being referred to the appropriate national authority, falls to be dealt with under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the appropriate national authority must decide the application as if it were an application for consent for the felling of trees made under tree preservation regulations.
	(2) In this paragraph, the appropriate national authority means
	(a) the Secretary of State in relation to England;
	(b) the Welsh Ministers in relation to Wales..
	(4) In paragraph 3
	(a) for the Town and Country Planning Acts substitute the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, and
	(b) for the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or (for Scotland) the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 substitute that Act.
	(5) After paragraph 3 insert
	3A Where under section 15(3)(a) an application, on being referred to an authority who have made a tree preservation order, falls to be dealt with under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the authority must decide the application as if it were an application for consent for the felling of trees made under tree preservation regulations..'.
	No. 281, page 137, line 21, leave out from '7' to end of line 24 and insert
	'(1) Section 210 (penalties for non-compliance with tree preservation order) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)
	(a) for a tree preservation order substitute tree preservation regulations,
	(b) in paragraph (a) omit the or at the end, and
	(c) after paragraph (b) insertor
	(c) causes or permits the carrying out of any of the activities in paragraph (a) or (b),.
	(3) In subsection (4), for a tree preservation order substitute tree preservation regulations.
	(4) In the side-note, for order substitute regulations.'.
	No. 282, page 137, line 31, at end insert
	'8A In section 212 (power to disapply section 211) omit subsection (4).'.
	No. 283, page 138, line 6, at end insert
	 'Planning and Compensation Act 1991 (c. 34)
	14 (1) Part 1 of Schedule 18 to the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 (compensation provisions that do not provide for interest) is amended as follows.
	(2) After the entry for section 186 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 insert
	
		
			 Section 202E of that Act Date (a) any consent required by tree preservation regulations is refused, (b) any such consent is granted subject to conditions, or (c) any approval required under such a condition is refused. 
		
	
	(3) Omit the entries for sections 203 and 204 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.'. [Mr. Watts.]

Schedule 7
	  
	Repeals

Amendments made: No. 284, page 148, line 27, at end insert
	
		
			 'Forestry Act 1967 (c. 10) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 (a) the words from section 77 to (for Scotland), and (b) the said section 77 or (for Scotland).'. 
		
	
	No. 285, page 148, line 33, at end insert
	
		
			  'Section 212(4).'. 
		
	
	No. 286, page 148, line 33, at end insert
	
		
			  'In section 284(3)(a), for planning permission. 
		
	
	No. 287, page 149, line 5, column 2, at end insert
	
		
			  'Sections 46 to 48.'. 
		
	
	No. 288, page 149, line 6, at end insert
	
		
			  'Section 122(5)(a). 
			  In section 122(6), (a),. 
			  In Schedule 6, paragraph 5.'. 
		
	
	No. 289, page 149, line 6, at end insert
	
		
			 'Greater London Authority Act 2007 (c. 24) Section 36.'. 
		
	
	 [ Mr. Watts. ]
	 Order for Third Reading read.[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]

John Healey: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	As we begin Third Reading, we have come to a wide agreement that this is an important Bill that makes important far-reaching reforms to our planning system. The challenges facing the country demand difficult decisions in order to make such improvements. We must replace a third of our electricity generation capacity in the next 20 years. We must increase the power we generate from renewable resources and we aim to see that at a level of 20 per cent. by 2020. We must secure water supplies for a growing population with an increasingly changing climate, and we must improve the major transport systems to support jobs and economic growth in this country for the future.
	We know that to get major investment for such major developments we need clearer national policies on big energy, water and transport developments. We know that we need a better way to make decisions on big project applications and that we need more opportunities for local people to have a say and an influence, particularly those from the local council areas and communities that are most affected by big project applications. That is precisely what the Bill provides us with.

Lembit �pik: Will the Minister give way?

John Healey: I will not give waynot to the hon. Gentleman at this point.
	The House, and members of the Public Bill Committee in particular, have given the Bill strong scrutiny. We have had four Committee evidence sessions, 14 Committee scrutiny sessions and two days on Report. At every stage, the Government have been ready to listen carefully to the arguments and concerns raised by Members from all parties and from groups with an interest in the Bill.
	When there has been a good case for changes that can also strengthen the Bill, we have been ready to make such changes. We have done that in relation to the accountability of the IPC to the House through Select Committees, a stronger duty for Ministers to take the environment into account, and the role of local councils in reporting to the IPC on the consultation conducted by promoters before an application and on the impact of an application in their area. We have made such changes on the right to be heard at inquiries conducted by the IPC and on a range of other matters, from enforcement loopholes to excluding tramways and other guided transport systems from the Bill.
	I pay tribute to the Chairs of the four main departmental Select Committees who have worked with me and with the Leader of the House. As a result of what the Chair of the Select Committee on Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform has described as extremely constructive dialogue, we have developed and legislated for a special system to allow Parliament to scrutinise the new national policy statements, which was agreed by the House during our first day on Report.
	There is also wide agreement that the planning system requires a radical overhaul. As we pass the Bill to the other place, we have reached the point where there is wide, if not universal, acceptance of our plans to reform the existing eight separate consent regimesoften arcane and antiquatedinto one. Also accepted are our new national policy statements that will cover the big questions on the balance between environmental, economic and social objectives. Those policy statements will also consider the national need for development, including where nuclear power stations and airport extensions should be sited. Our plans for a new independent commission, drawn from a wide range of relevant expertise and tasked with assessing and deciding on applications, have also been accepted.

John Redwood: If someone wanted to begin a planning application for a new power station today, how long would it take to get an answer under the new system?

John Healey: An application today for a new power station would be handled under the existing regime. The new system means that the commission will handle such matters only when the new national policy statements are in place, and under their terms.
	The Government have also gained approval for new legal obligations for project developers to consult locally before submitting an application. If they do not do so, the commission will not even look at an application. We have also gained approval for our plans for a new inquiry process that guarantees the right to be heard, in writing and in person, and which makes cross-examination available. The commission will lead the questions, so that lawyers do not dominate and cause local voices to be shut out.
	Finally, we have gained approval for our plans to improve the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and for a new power allowing councils to introduce a community infrastructure levy for their areas.

Lembit �pik: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me, and I shall be brief. He mentioned the public's right to be heard, but many people are worried about how areas subject to flooding and standing water are handled. Is he confident that the new planning process will give local residents the opportunity to have their opinions heard before the Environment Agency turns an area into a standing water flood plain?

John Healey: I rather regret giving way to the hon. Gentleman now, as he has a habit of coming in halfway through a debate and going off half-cocked. The Bill does not cover those matters, nor does it touch that part of the planning system.
	Some of the proposals in the Bill involve tough decisions, but they will help meet this country's vital long-term needs for more homes, nuclear power and airport extensions. Faced with those difficult planning decisions, the Tories have ducked and divedworse, though, they have at times played the Bill for short-term political gain. In Committee they voted against the IPC, preferring that the planning inspectorate should do the job of hearing applications. At the start of the Report stage today, a Tory amendment accepted the IPC, but only to make recommendations. By the end of Report stage, they voted to allow the IPC to make decisions, but only if they were confirmed by the Secretary of State after six months.
	Not only do the Opposition duck the difficult questions, their policy moves with the political wind. There is no consistency or credibility, so no wonder they are still not taken seriously by serious opinion. Today's edition of the  Financial Times devoted a leading article to the Planning Bill. It said that the Tories
	are facing in two directions at once. Despite their claims to want more housing and development, they are prepared to sink the reforms necessary to deliver a better system...Leader David Cameron's half-pregnant pose on planning will not do.
	Another heavyweight view was expressed in a letter last week to the Leader of the Opposition. It stated:
	Improving the way the UK gives planning approval for this infrastructure is now absolutely crucial to delivery of a secure, greener, energy economy for the UK...Without a much smoother planning process we believe many of the aspirations you set out so clear in your Blue/Green Charter will not be achieved.
	That letter was written by Steve Holliday, the chief executive of the National Grid, on behalf of all this country's major energy companies.
	In other words, we have a Conservative party with a leader who cannot take tough decisions, and who cannot say where he stands on the big issues, because he is too concerned with his immediate political position. I say to my hon. Friends that that is good for Labour, good for the Government and good for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister sees what Britain needs for the long term and he is determined to see the changes through the short-term difficulties, because they are essential for the country. I am pleased to say that the House has given the Bill strong backing in Divisions on all the main issues, which is a sound basis on which to send it to the other place. I look forward to seeing their Lordships lend their support to the Bill's main provisions, as this elected House has.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Clive Betts.

Clive Betts: I want to make three or four

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do apologise. I call Jacqui Lait.

Jacqui Lait: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not think that I had become wholly invisible. That is a more relaxed note for me to start on than if I had started by attacking the Minister for his rather unpleasant summing up. Although we had our differences, we behaved very reasonably in Committee and exchanged a lot of views, although we may not have agreed. We had a very pleasant atmosphere, and it is a great shame that there is this rather bitter and twisted approach on Third Reading.
	It is lovely to see the Minister back, by the way. He worked so hard, and then he was pushed aside for the two really difficult groups of amendments that we debated this afternoon. I think he needs to keep his women under control.
	We need to agree where we agree, and make it absolutely clear where we disagree and why. Nobody disagrees that we need to speed up infrastructure planning. In fact, one of the most shocking things that happened in the past 10 years was that when Tony Blair became Prime Minister, he instantly ducked decisions on nuclear power, and did so for 10 years. Now, suddenly, the Government are wedded to nuclear power. For 10 years they have deliberately not made decisions, and we are now facing the hangover from that.
	The deputy director of the CBI asked earlier this week what we would do when the lights went out in 2015. Even with the changes in the Bill, there is no way in which we will get new nuclear power stations up and running by then. Let us work together to try to ensure that we speed up infrastructure planning applications.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is most likely that the first nuclear power station will be in my constituency? I welcome that, so there is nothing wrong with my saying on the one hand that I want the Government to make decisions instead of hanging about for 10 years before doing so, but on the other hand that they are much more likely to get their plans through if my constituents have a clear ability to talk about what they care about locally, without a quango interposing. That is the issue that we have had to consider.

Jacqui Lait: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend, and after I have clarified what we and the Government agree on, I shall address the issues on which we fundamentally disagree.

John Redwood: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jacqui Lait: I know that others wish to contribute, but I shall give way if my right hon. Friend will be brief.

John Redwood: Will my hon. Friend answer the question that the Minister obviously could not? If somebody wanted to build a power station now, would it be quicker for them to submit an application today, under the current system, or to wait for all the gobbledegook of the new system and run with that?

Jacqui Lait: I believe that E.ON has submitted a planning application for a coal-fired power station, and I suggest that it needs to get on with it. Under the new system, it would be mired in the courts under judicial review into infinity.
	It will be really helpful if I can get back to what we agree about. We agree that the system needs to be sped up. We agree on the single consent regime. We agree in principle on the national policy statements and on the community infrastructure levy, which we did not reach this afternoon, largely because the changes to the programme motion allowed the Government to ensure that we would not debate it.
	In Committee, we put forward ideas to make the Bill work better. We wanted to keep the democratic principles. We wanted a vote in Parliament on a national policy statement because that would make it democratically owned. We do not want Ministers to make decisions on the IPC, and we tabled a variety of amendments to determine whether the Government had made any moves towards understanding that the IPC will be totally undemocratic and unaccountable.
	The IPC will be abolished. We have agreed to take on the review after two years that the Secretary of State offered the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). In two years we will be in government, and we will review the IPC out of existence. For the second time today, I put on record the fact that anyone who takes up a contract to be a commissioner will have a very short contract.
	We want to ensure that applications are kept out of the courts, but this system will drive them into the courts, to judicial review. We want local authorities to have effective powers over the community infrastructure levy. We want them to have effective powers over small planning applications and local housing and planning developments. We do not want regional development agencies to take over those roles.
	The Bill does not allow for a vote on national policy statements in Parliament. It hands over the power and responsibility of Ministers. The British people understand that Ministers are there to take decisions, not to hand that power to the unelected. Handing over the powers to the IPC is an abrogation of their democratic responsibility.
	We do not want planning authority to be transferred from regional assemblies, which we hate anyway, to RDAs, which are inappropriate bodies to handle it. We do not want infrastructure money to be taken away from the people in a community who suffer from developments and handed to somewhere totally remote from where they live.
	It was a scandal that we did not consider the community infrastructure levy on Report. Key points of principle needed to be debatedalthough, of course, we could not have debated the detail because we still do not know it. I doubt that even the House of Lords will have the detail. It looks as though the community infrastructure levy is unravelling. The Government are setting it up to fail, and they are getting away with it because they are not prepared to repeal the Planning-gain Supplement (Preparations) Act 2007. Until that Act is repealed, it provides a fall-back position for the Government.
	If the 2007 Act is still on the statute book, no one will accept that the community infrastructure levy can be made to work under the various proposals that might come forward. It is a paving Act, but the mere fact that it is on the statute book indicates that the Government are still prepared to use it. I challenge the Government to repeal the Act. When they do, we might get a workable community infrastructure levy.
	We have not been able to debate the serious transfer of power to the Welsh Assembly and we have not been able to discuss issues relating to Scotland. The Bill is one of the most undemocratic, unaccountable

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jacqui Lait: I will, but I wish that my hon. Friend had not interrupted as I was moving into my peroration.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Having sat through both days' consideration on Report, and given that I am unlikely to be called to speak on Third Reading, I feel that I am entitled to interrupt her. Does she agree that there is a wonderful irony in the fact that Ministers have announced today that they will have site-specific national policy statements for aviation and nuclear power stations? Does she think that those statements will be in existence in two years' time when she reviews the future of the IPC?

Jacqui Lait: There is a very quick answer to that question: no. Those are part of the undemocratic nature of the Bill.
	The Bill does not chime with the history, traditions or beliefs of the British people. It is centralising, in that it will take power away from communities rather than giving it to them, and I advise my hon. Friends to vote against its Third Reading at 8 o'clock. I hope that the Lords will send it back to us in a much better state.

Clive Betts: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When you mistakenly called me to speak a few minutes ago, I thought that you were asking for a speech on the real opposition to the Bill. I have just listened to what the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) had to say.
	I should like to thank my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench for the open and constructive way in which they have conducted the consideration of the Bill. I listened to the hon. Member for Beckenham talking about the Conservatives' proposal to scrap the IPC as part of the review. My idea of carrying out a review is that we should look at how something is operating and, on the basis of that evidence, decide whether we like what we see or whether we want to change it. We should not prejudge these things in advance.
	Apart from the hon. Lady's well-rehearsed arguments about who should take the final decisions, and her suggestion that she might change the name of the IPC and call it the planning inspectorate mark 2, I have not heard any detailed proposals on what the Conservatives would put in place of our provisions if they were in government. I have heard a few soundbites, but there is no substance to their proposals. It is important that we get this right in order to tackle climate change.
	I welcome the community infrastructure levy. It is a positive measure to help the regeneration of our cities, to which I am very committed, and for which I want local authorities to have the appropriate resources. The fact that the provision will be embedded in the planning system and have local democratic accountabilityit will be part of the work of the local authorities that are accountable to their communitiesis a major step forward. This is an improvement on the planning gain supplement. I know that there are still issues to be worked out. The whole question of valuation and how we work it into the system is a difficult one, but the concept is nevertheless right and it deserves support.

John Redwood: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the proposals will simply delay and complicate matters more? Far from streamlining the process, establishing the quango and putting in place the ministerial guidanceall of which will be much delayedwill be an impediment to speedy decision making, not an encouragement.

Clive Betts: I do not agree with that, but that is just a difference of opinion.
	The Bill presents a real challenge to Members of the House. The national policy statements are the bedrock of the first part of the Bill. There will be room for scrutiny of the statements andif Members are serious about these issueswhen we eventually get a decision from the IPC that we do not like, it might well be because the policy statement is one that we did not like in the first place. It will be a challenge to all of us to take part in that debate and to ensure that we give the matter full scrutiny.
	There will be a challenge to the Select Committees to ensure that we get the right chair and vice-chair, through pre-appointment scrutiny. There will also be a challenge to the Select Committees to monitor the work of the IPC and to call in its chair and commissioners to question them about applications that they have received and decisions that they have made. There are challenges in the Bill in regard to the work of the House, but there are also opportunities as part of the accountability process.
	I welcome the Bill. It has been improved as a result of the constructive debates that we have had, and there are important provisions here that will do much to tackle climate change and to help the regeneration of our cities, which I welcome.

Daniel Rogerson: As we come to the end of this the first time that I have had the opportunity to represent my party on the consideration of a Bill, I feel that I should thank the Minister and his colleagues for the courteous way in which they have conducted the proceedings, if not for the cotton wool that has been in their ears whenever we have tried to effect any changes. I should also like to extend my thanks to the hon. Members for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd)and, indeed, all the members of the Committee and all those who have participated in the debates up to nowfor the serious consideration that they have given to the matters at hand.
	This is still a bad Bill. We had the chance to improve it, but if the Government's handling of the Bill is an example of the kind of consultation that is on offer to our constituentsthey are right to be concerned about the Billit strikes me that we have a metaphor for the new planning regime that the Government are seeking to implement. Liberal Democrat Members and those Labour Members who bravely stood up to their Whips tried to tighten environmental controls, strengthen accountability and ensure a right to be heard. We sought to add a third party right of appeal; we sought to give new powers to local authorities on use class orders to allow them to resolve problems locally; and we sought a fairer regime on phone masts. Throughout, the Government said that they heard what we were saying, but the answer was no. Liberal Democrat Members have heard what the Government have to say in support of the Bill this evening, and our answer is no.

John McDonnell: The behaviour of the House in agreeing the programme motion and conducting today's debate has been little short of a disgrace.
	The practical implication of the Bill is that it will most probably be used in my constituency first with regard to Heathrow. Before Members walk through the Lobby tonight, they should recognise what they are doing. If they vote for the Bill and it is used at Heathrow, thousands of people will lose their homesthey will be forcibly removed from their properties. Those parents who send their children to Heathrow primary, William Byrd school and Harmondsworth school will see those schools demolished. The proposal will also mean a roadway through Cherry Lane cemetery, so we will dig up our dead as a result of the proposals for Heathrow that will be forced through under this procedure. When Members vote tonight, they should recognise the human implications as well as the pollution of the air of communities across London.
	It denigrates this House to force through a Bill in this way. As we have heard, there will be no votes in this House on national policy statements. No Member of Parliament who has a big scheme, such as the one at Heathrow, inflicted on them will have any say in this Chamber on that proposal. People will ask themselves, What is the point of voting? Others will ask themselves, What is the point of standing for Parliament?, if they can have no say on a national policy statement that has implications for our country.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that policy statements will be site-specific. Inquiries and discussions at the local level will be pre-empted without even a vote in this Chamber. When hon. Members vote to destroy my local community with this legislation, it will possibly be their last chance in this Chamber to vote on the matter. They should understand the implications.
	In addition, we now know that the consultation will be undertaken by the developer, which means that BAA will undertake the consultation on the expansion of Heathrow. That organisation has lied and deceived this Chamber and my community on a consistent basis over every development proposal at Heathrow.
	Turning to the inquiry, local people will no longer have the right to be heardlet us be honest about that. They will have the right to turn up at an open floor session, where will they will compete with hundreds, if not thousands, of others who are trying to make their voices heard. They will not be allowed to interrogate anybody who introduces such a proposal.

Martin Horwood: rose

John McDonnell: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not give way, because I have two minutes left.
	Let us not kid ourselvesthe Bill undermines the democratic process. We are outsourcing democratic decision making to the IPC, because the Secretary of State will not be responsible and we will not have a final vote on the decision. You know as well as I do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when we undermine the powers of this House, people go elsewhere. We will be encouraging the largest direct action movement that this country has seen since the suffragettes. People will not only climb on the roof of this Chamber, but lie down in front of bulldozers when the developers come to smash their homes and demolish their churches, schools and community centres.
	Hon. Members need to be aware how fundamentally different this Bill is from anything that we have considered beforeit is not an administrative measure to speed up the planning process. It undermines the democratic involvement and engagement in the planning process that we have had in this country for two centuries. When Members vote tonight, I want them to remember the families who will be forced out of their homes in my constituency. I want them to know the names of the schools that will be demolished, and I want them to remember Cherry Lane cemetery, where the dead will have to be dug up if this legislation goes through and the Heathrow expansion is forced through as a result.
	I am ashamed of what has happened in this Chamber today. We have not even been allowed to speak to the amendments that were tabled in my and other Members' names because of the Government's programme motion. What are we doing tomorrow? Nothing! We could have had this debate tomorrow and on other days, because it is so significant for the future democracy of this country. Yet the Bill is being railroaded through. I want my constituents to know that it goes through with my opposition and my protest today.

It being Eight o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker  proceeded to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Orders [2 June and this day].
	 The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 198.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Delegated Legislation

Mr. Deputy Speaker: For the convenience of the House, I intend to take motions 4 to 6 together.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Serious Organised Crime Agency

That the draft Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Disclosure of Information by SOCA) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 12th May, be approved.

Proceeds of Crime

That the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 12th May, be approved.

Mental Capacity

That the draft Mental Capacity (Deprivation of Liberty: Standard Authorisations, Assessments and Ordinary Residence) Regulations 2008, which were laid before this House on 20th May, be approved. [Mr. David.]
	 Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Nurse Training

Howard Stoate: I beg leave to present the humble petition of Mrs. Rachel Downey, editor of  Nursing Times, and others of like disposition, including my constituent, Mr. Alan Pooley.
	The petition arises from a survey of nurses, which  Nursing Times carried out. It revealed that more than half the respondents felt that they were receiving inadequate training and that it was having an effect on nurse morale and patient care.
	The petition states:
	The humble Petition of Mrs R. Downey, editor of Nursing Times magazine and others of like disposition,
	Sheweth
	That since 2005-06 Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs) have diverted more than 5000 million away from Multi-Professional Education and Training (MPET) budgets to pay for other services. Both mandatory and non-mandatory post-registration nurse training have been severely reduced across the country as a result. The situation continues, putting nurses' career progression and patient safety at risk. The Nursing Times' Time Out For Training campaign urges the Prime Minister to ring-fence post-registration nurse training funds to stop SHAs spending the money elsewhere.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urge the Secretary of State for Health to ring-fence Multi-Professional Education and Training (MPET) funding given to Strategic Health Authorities which is used in part to provide nurse training, and to support the Nursing Times' Time Out For Training campaign.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, c.
	[P000222]

Post Office Closures (Shropshire)

Daniel Kawczynski: I present a petition on behalf of the residents of Montford Bridge about the prospect of the closure of their post office. Montford Bridge is an important village community in my constituency, where transport links to the county town of Shrewsbury are not good. People feel extremely strongly about the importance of retaining post offices throughout my constituency and Shropshire.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to instruct Post Office Ltd. to ensure that Montford Bridge Post Office is kept open.
	It has more than 420 signatures.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [ The Petition of users of Montford Bridge Post Office,
	 Declares that that the plan to close five Post Offices in the Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency will have a detrimental effect on the lives of local residents. The local Post Office is a vital and integral element of the local community, supporting social interaction between residents. They should not simply be assessed on an economic basis without taking into consideration the social economic value they offer to the local community. The proposed partial replacement of three of the Post Offices earmarked for closure by a mobile vehicle with restricted hours, and in some cases parked on the side of roads or in lay-bys, is a substandard solution not benefiting the world we live in today.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to instruct Post Office Ltd. to ensure that Montford Bridge Post Office is kept open.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P000215]

Community Services (South Holland and The Deepings)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn [Mr. David.]

John Hayes: I am pleased to have secured the Adjournment debate about a case that is of great concern to my constituents, especially those in and around Spalding. As I mentioned to the Chair, I will present a substantial petition on the subject in the coming days, but tonight I want to focus on the issues that lie behind the petition, which many thousands of my constituents have signed.
	Perhaps it would be helpful to say a word or two for those less well acquainted than you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with my fenland constituency about its character and nature. I am proud to represent a very rural constituency. Around 40 per cent. of the local population are designated as country dwellers. Almost an eighth of the population is directly employed in agriculture or horticulture, and many other businesses that are major employers in south Lincolnshirethe supply businesses, the haulage industry and so onare related to horticulture and agriculture. That is the context in which I wish to make a case about the closure of some of the important services that add to the quality of life in my constituency.
	I want to speak especially about Spalding tax office and our driving test centre. Before that, let me emphasise that the essence of the message that I wish to convey is about rural-proofing and the quality of life in rural communities. At the culmination of my short speech, I hope that I will hold the Government to account for their assertions about their belief in rural-proofing, which, if it is to mean anything, should mean the maintenance of vibrant communities that can enjoy a quality of life based on the provision of important public and community services.
	The Inland Revenue office in Spalding provides one such serviceindeed, an excellent serviceto residents with concerns about tax issues and a number of major local employers whose tax affairs are dealt with solely at that office. Yet you will be as shocked as I was, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to learn that the office's closure is foreseen by the Government. It is possibleindeed probablethat the tax office in Spalding will close; or, rather, it will unless Ministers listen to the clarion call coming not from me, but from my constituents. I am merely a vehicle for their energetic campaign to keep that office open.
	Companies that collectively employ thousands of people locally rely on the expertise of the tax office, which they can easily access. In the last year, the Spalding office has dealt with more than 10,000 inquiries and has been identified as one of the most cost-effective tax offices in Lincolnshire, with very low operational costs. The closure would have a harmful impact on the most vulnerable people in the communities that I represent, particularly the elderly, the disabled and families without cars, for whom a journey to the next nearest office would prove most difficult. The closure would have a detrimental effect on South Holland and on south Lincolnshire's communities, diminishing the quality of life.
	Furthermore, I question how the proposal to close the tax office fits in with the Government's overall strategy. It certainly cannot be justified on financial grounds, as it has become clear from parliamentary answers that the savings from closing the office would be very small indeed. I have already mentioned that the office has low operational costs, and its work would be absorbed by other offices, where costs would consequently rise. The decision certainly cannot be squared with the Government's policies on rural communitiesor at least not with their assertions that they have positive policies for rural areasbecause it would have a severe effect on what is a rural town in a rural part of one of the most rural counties in Britain.
	The decision cannot really be squared with the Lyons review, either. The Minister is a man of good faith who takes such matters seriously. I trust that he will listen to the argument that I am making and consider most carefully whether the closure of the Spalding tax office meets any of the criteria that I have described and whether it stands up. When he stands up, perhaps he will tell us how much money would be saved; whether he has drawn any conclusions about the impact on the users of the office; and where they would go to seek the advice that they need. Has he made any assessment of the effect on the staff at that office, whose expertise is greatly valued and whose service is greatly appreciated by many of my constituents? The expertise that has, if I may put it this way, been collected at that office is substantial, but it would be dispersed should the closure plan go ahead.
	Bang next door to the tax office is the Spalding driving test centre; indeed, it is in the same building. I was pleased to visit recently and meet not only representatives of the tax office, but driving instructors and members of the local community who are concerned about the centre's potential closure. Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, shocking though it is, not only is the tax office threatened, but so is the driving test centre. When the heart is ripped from a rural community through reductions in the number of services that can be accessed within them, the lives of the people who live there are affected disproportionately. A rural community is not like a city or a large town, where people can easily find those services elsewhere.
	I shall also say a word or two about post offices in a moment, but I want first to explore the issues of the test centre a little more fully. There has been no consultation with those adversely affected by proposals of the Driving Standards Agency and the Government proposals to close the Spalding driving test centre. In July 2005, the Department for Transport introduced a code of practice on written consultations on matters relating to driving test centres. Consultation does not have to take place if the relocation is for legislative requirements such as the new motorcycle tests. Why is that? Perhaps the Minister will tell us. Surely the loss of a driving test centre has the same impact on people who rely on the service it provides, irrespective of the reason for its closure. Do not local representatives such as councillors anddare I say it?the Member of Parliament, and members of the community, people whose employment depends on the test centre and people such as our excellent South Holland youth council, all deserve to be consulted on such a change?
	I mention the youth council, of course, because many of the people who learn to drive in my constituency are, as I guess they are elsewhere, young people who will now have to travel much further to take their test. You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that people usually like to be taught where they are going to be tested or tested where they have been taught, so what is proposed will have a big effect on learners and instructors. The staff, the unions and the students themselves have not been consulted; in my judgment, they deserve to have their voices heard.
	The chief executive of the DSA, Rosemary Thew, says that the agency has to comply with European Community directive 2000/56/EC, which demands significant changes to the practical tests of motorcyclists with more demanding special manoeuvres. This requires the creation of a safe off-road area for testinghardly a sound excuse for closing the test centre in Spalding when such a facility could be provided quite easily in the locality by extending the existing test centre. Why has little or no consideration been given to that option?
	I mentioned the cost savings of the closure of the tax office. A similar picture emerges in respect of the test centre. On 29 April, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), released data in response to a written parliamentary question showing that the closure of the test centre in Spalding will save only 4,660 a year. Yet the Government are presumably arguing their case around a rationalisation that they claim will save money. This is the lowest figure for any of the 26 test centres earmarked for closure across the country. Such small savings are hard to justify when the impact on the environment, increased travel times and increased costs for instructors and students, as well as easy accessibility, are taken into consideration. My constituents are being penalised by the DSA in order to recover costsalbeit, in the case of Spalding, an almost unimaginably small sum in terms of total savingsas a result of yet another costly EU directive. I must not go down that road, Mr. Deputy Speaker, else I would test your patience and probably begin to tire the Minister, too.
	There is no additional capacity in the new Peterborough test centre as there are no plans to increase the number of existing examiners from the 10 already located at the centre. If Spalding test centre is forced to close, it will overstretch the centre at Peterborough and potentially double the current eight-week wait for a test. So we are talking about longer travel times, a longer wait for a test, environmental damage and minimal cost savings; I think it is time for a good Minister, regardless of party, to think again.
	The Government's plans to close the test centre in Spalding will, as I said, drive up costs. That could hit young people in particular very hard. Spalding was originally earmarked to have its own new multi-purpose driving test centre, and there continues to be a strong case to support that type of provision in the town. The current centre is profitable; demands for tests locally are high and growing; and retaining test services in Spalding would reduce travelling distance, as I said. Why, then, has the DSA withdrawn its plans to provide Spalding with a new multi-purpose centre? Again, the Minister will perhaps have a chance either today or subsequently to make that clear.
	As I said at the beginning of my short speech, the Spalding tax office provides a very important service for businesses and individuals in my constituency. Similarly, the test centre is an important part of life in a town that lies at the heart of South Holland.
	There are a number of other facilities in constituents like mine that are threatened with closure. Members will know of concern about the loss of the rural post office network. This morning I met representatives of Postwatch, here in the House, to discuss the possible loss of further post offices in villages in my constituency. Small schools also need to be protected, because they give life to small rural communities. Village shops and pubs, too, have their part to play in making life more agreeable for people who live in remote places such as my constituency.
	I do not expect the Minister to be able to deal with all the points that I have raised in the short time available to him tonight, but I do expect him to say something about the Government's policy on rural proofing. Rural proofing, we have been told by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is
	a commitment by Government to ensure that all its domestic policies take account of rural circumstances and needs.
	The Department states:
	It is a mandatory part of the policy making process, which means that, as policies develop, policy makers should systematically...Consider whether their policy is likely to have a different impact in rural areas, because of particular circumstances or needs... Make a proper assessment of those impacts, if they are likely to be significant... Adjust the policy, where appropriate, with solutions to meet rural needs and circumstances.
	That is the Government's policy. It is not something that I have invented, although I agree with all those statements and approve of all aspects of what constitutes a truly effective policy for rural proofing.
	We are told by the Government that rural proofing
	applies to all policies, programmes and initiatives and it applies to both the design and delivery stages.
	How does the forced closure and centralisation of front-line public services in rural areas, including the tax office and driving test centre in Spalding, comply with those stated Government policies on rural proofing?
	Spalding is as rural as you can get. I have mentioned my constituency's dependence on agriculture and horticulture. The test of rurality is interesting. It might be defined as a combination of employment of that kind with a measurement of sparsity. By that measure, South Holland and The Deepings is one of the most rural constituencies in Great Britain. If rural proofing does not apply there, where on earth does it apply? The Government seem to have forgotten the existence of their rural White Paper and its stated objectives. Certainly rural-proofing seems to have played little or no part in their decision-making process in the case of the tax office and driving test centre in Spalding.
	It is clear to me that the concerns I have raised about the closure of those two important facilities have yet to be properly considered. I do not blame this Minister for that, but I am anxious to draw these matters to his attention in the confident expectation that he will give them diligent consideration and, if he and colleagues think it necessary, reconsider. I urge him to do so.
	Spalding is a growing town. Its population has already grown significantly over the last decade or more, and there is potential for further growth over the next decade and beyond. The demands on the tax office are not shrinking, but growing. The demands on the test centre are growing too. The expertise that has been developed, particularly at the tax office, will not be easily replaced, and it will be very difficult for a future Government of any political persuasion to reinvent what has been lost.
	I simply ask the Government not to act in haste and repent at leisure. It would do no favours to Government, and it would certainly do no favours to the people of South Holland and The Deepings, who deserve much better. While I am their Member of Parliament I will, at the very least, miss no opportunity and expend all my energy in championing their case in the House of Commons, and I am delighted to have had the opportunity to do so this evening.

Parmjit Dhanda: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) on securing this debate, and on representing a constituency with one of the finest namessecond only, perhaps, to that of the city of Gloucester. May I also respond to his remarks on rural proofing? Wearing my other hat as Minister for the fire and rescue service, I was in Lincolnshire just a few days ago, and I wish to put it on record that I saw that Lincolnshire fire and rescue service does very good work, particularly the retained firefighters. About three quarters of firefighters in Lincolnshire are retained firefighters. They work in the rural communities that the hon. Gentleman described and not only do a good job in firefighting, but good work in co-respondingin ambulance and fire services working together in harness and supporting each other. That is a great example, from which we can learn. As I told the chief fire officer, I am keen to follow up on that, and to see more of that kind of work being done and to learn from some of that best practice. That is a good example of rural services leading the way.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about his local tax office, which I will address, and his driving school, and he also spoke more generally about issues in Spalding, such as those to do with post offices. In my experience as a constituency MP, the big issues concern schools and hospitals, and perhaps driving centres to an extent, as my father was a driving inspector, although I attended driving school only twice, first when I failed my driving test at the age of 17, and then a few months later when I passed it. I do not spend a great deal of time in tax offices either, but I accept that every constituency is different, and perhaps these two institutions are particularly relevant in Spalding and play a big role in his local community.
	I do not want to wish closure on the hon. Gentleman's tax office. From what he said, and from what I understand, no such decision has yet been made, but his community is gearing itself up, in preparation for possible future decisions, to defend an institution that it values so much. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs has undergone a systematic process of review, consultation and announcements on tax offices across the whole UK. The review process is virtually complete for office buildings in the east Midlands region and I understand that an announcement is expected to be made to staff and trade unions before our summer recess, and Members with a constituency interest in the area will be notified by HMRC at the same time.
	HMRC is making significant changes to the way it carries out its business so that it can meet the demands of its customers and meet the requirement we, as Ministers, are making of it to optimise efficiency. Many customers now choose to telephone HMRC offices, and they also use the internet far more than they did in the past to file returns or make claims; indeed, I file my tax returns on the internet. Therefore, it is right for senior management to look at all their operations to ensure that they are run as efficiently as possible. In some work areas, they see that need as best being served by concentrating work in larger units where the processes can be streamlined and improved. In other areas, a more mobile work force is seen as the best solution to meet customer needs.
	I am happy to confirm that, whatever the outcome of the review for the offices in SpaldingI genuinely do not know what that outcome will beas well as those in the east midlands as a whole, we can say that inquiry centres will be maintained in their current locations or nearby and the same level of customer service provided. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will ask more questions both here and locally to obtain such assurances. Staff will not be required to move to an office beyond a reasonable daily travel distance, and there is an established process for managers and staff to discuss options for their future employment, dependent on the outcome of the review, which is open, transparent, accessible and involves the trade unions.

John Hayes: I am grateful to the Minister, who is dealing with these matters with his usual courtesy and diligence. Perhaps I did not explain with sufficient force that the travel distances have to be considered alongside the difficulty of using the roads and rail network in my constituency. Train services to Spalding are relatively poor and elsewhere are non-existent. Nor is the road network in Lincolnshire as sophisticated as it might be, so the travel issues are especially profound in a place such as Spalding and a district such as South Holland.

Parmjit Dhanda: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The criteria that will be used include the distance that staff will have to travel and the trade unions will make the point as forcefully as he has just done.
	Proposals to rationalise work and office space across the east midlands were put forward for consultation in March this year. Staff, the trade unions, hon. Members and local authorities have contributed to that consultation, providing information on travel routes, economic interests in the locations, the position of other employers and Departments, as well as individual circumstances that should be taken into account. Reports summarising those responses were published earlier today.
	Let me emphasise that all the information that was provided during the consultation is being considered by HMRC in arriving at its recommendations. I welcome this debate as part of the Government's commitment to the process of consultation and openness in moving forwards. HMRC has embarked on a long-term programme that will deliver a more responsive and efficient service for taxpayers and claimants. The point that the hon. Gentleman made about rural proofing is relevant and I am glad that he has put it on the record.
	I turn now to driving test centres. I am not a Transport Minster, but I have it on good authority that Ministers have agreed that the development of a new national network of driving test centres is required not only to facilitate the new European requirements for practical driving and riding tests, but to provide driving tests that are more relevant to modern driving conditions and to help to ensure safety on the roads.
	The Department for Transport published its Safe driving for life consultation document in May and it raises a number of questions on failure rates for first-time driving test candidatesI confess that I was one of them many years agoand the fact that so many people are being killed on the roads. Unfortunately, I have seen that happen in my county and, as the hon. Gentleman's county is not dissimilar, he may also have seen that happen. Many of the victims are young people and motorcyclists. We believe that the new European standards support our domestic strategy for reducing road casualties, which are running at more than 3,000 people killed and 30,000 people seriously injured each year. The new multi-purpose test centresknown as MPTCswill be suitable for the delivery of practical driving tests for learner car drivers and motorcyclists. Where possible, some centres will also be used for the delivery of lorry and bus driving tests. They will also provide modern facilities that are fully compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and which support the Government's wider sustainability agenda.
	The Driving Standards Agency is seeking to develop around 60 MPTCs across the country, which is up to 20 more than it concluded would be required to meet existing service standard criteria. I understand that, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, an MPTC is to be located at Peterborough. That is within the 30-mile limit needed to meet current service levels. As he said, the Spalding driving test centre is therefore being co-located at Peterborough MPTC to maximise utilisation.
	In addition to Peterborough, which is approximately 19 miles from the Spalding area, there are alternative local test centres within the 30-mile limit: Boston is about 14 miles from the hon. Gentleman's constituency, Grantham about 29, Wisbech about 19, and King's Lynn about 27.
	Peterborough MPTC will be resourced so that waiting time targets for car driving and motorcycle tests are not compromised by the changes. However, I understand that the hon. Gentleman is due to meet the DSA chief executive in a few weeks to discuss that as well.
	On post office closures, I should say at the outset that Ministers do not play a direct role in decisions to close or retain individual Post Offices. I know that, as in the past, I have been through the process of trying to save post offices in my own constituency. More recently, two post offices in my area were proposed for closure. I tried to save both and succeeded in saving one. I understand how the closure of post offices unsettles local communities, but we must accept that they must be viable. The Government are putting in some 1.7 billion in subsidy
	 The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker  adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	 Adjourned at thirteen minutes to Nine o ' clock.

Deferred Division

Diplomatic and Consular Protection of union citizens in third countries

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 5947/08 and Addenda 1 and 2, European Commission Communication, Diplomatic and consular protection of union citizens in third countries; recalls that such Communications are not legally binding; underlines that the provision of consular assistance remains a matter for Member States; and in this context, welcomes the Commission's Communication as a contribution to continuing reflections on promoting consular co-operation among EU Member States.
	 The House divided: Ayes 330, Noes 131.

Question accordingly agreed to.